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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it doesn't say whether this is a hard or soft removal, what happens if the id/email isn't found, or whether supplying both identifiers errors. Note the sibling delete_webhook uses "delete" while this uses "remove", and the distinction is never clarified.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero filler. Nothing to trim.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. However, for a destructive operation with zero required parameters, the missing details about failure behavior and identifier precedence leave a real gap.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are fully documented there, so the baseline is 3. The description only restates "by id or email address" without adding format, precedence, or mutual-exclusivity rules (e.g., what happens if both are passed).

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+resource ("Remove a suppression") and names the two identifier modes. Sibling tools add_suppression/list_suppressions make the family obvious, but the description itself does no explicit differentiation work.

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?

No statement of when to use this versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no warning about irreversibility that would help an agent decide to call it. Only the identifier options hint at usage, which is really parameter content rather than guidance.

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