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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description adds the real blast radius: follow-ups stop yet the recipient is not deleted, shared lists and global subscriptions are untouched, no email is sent, and already-emitted follow-ups are not recalled. It also discloses prerequisites (confirmed suppression, verified email identity, runtime attestation), which the annotations do not cover.

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?

Three tight sentences organized as action/scope, then prerequisites, then explicit non-effects. It is front-loaded with the verb and contains no filler; every negative clause defines a distinct boundary an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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 destructive, seven-required-param mutation tool, the description covers trigger, preconditions, scope, and non-effects, and an output schema exists so return values need not be described. An agent has everything needed to decide and invoke correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds rationale by tying three of the seven params to their intent: 'confirmed suppression' (confirmSuppression), 'recipient email identity' (expectedContactEmail), and 'current runtime attestation' (expectedDatabaseFingerprint/expectedStage). The remaining attestation params are left to the 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 (Stop/Suppress) plus resource (future automatic follow-ups) scoped to one exact saved campaign recipient. It also carves out what it is not — deleting recipients, altering lists, sending email — which lets an agent distinguish it from sibling mutation tools like delete or add_contact without opening schemas.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition — 'after an explicit operator request or verified inbox reply' — which is clear when-to-use guidance. It also lists when-not via the non-effect clauses, but never names a sibling alternative to reach for in other cases, so it stops short of a full 5.

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