Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the suppression is 'permanent', a key irreversible trait, but says nothing about required permissions, whether it can be reversed, or what happens to already-scheduled calls. That partial disclosure lands at a 3.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the permanence caveat is included efficiently. It is perhaps too thin for a mutation tool, but there is no wasted wording.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a permanent mutation with no annotations, no output schema and three fully undocumented required parameters, the description is too sparse. It omits the reason requirement, authorization needs, and the effect on existing/queued calls.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description names none of the three required parameters. In particular the mandatory 'reason' field (1-200 chars) is never hinted at, so the description does not compensate for the undocumented schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (suppress), resource (contact) and scope (from new calls in this workspace), so an agent can tell what it does. It does not differentiate itself from similar siblings such as contacts_erase or contacts_update, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The use case is only weakly implied by 'suppress ... from new calls'. There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no mention of the plausible alternative siblings (contacts_erase for deletion, contacts_update for editing), which is a real gap given how many contact tools exist.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.