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

Annotations already mark this as destructive, idempotent, and not read-only. The description adds a valuable safety condition requiring confirmation before removal, though it does not elaborate on edge cases such as removing an email that is not suppressed.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the key caution. There is no wasted text.

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 simple destructive mutation, the description covers the action and the confirmation prerequisite, and annotations carry the safety profile. No output schema exists, so no return-value explanation is needed, though minor edge-case behavior is unstated.

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?

The schema documents the optional apiKey and the email parameter has format/pattern constraints, while the description clarifies that email is the target. With 50% schema description coverage, the description does not add further parameter details, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: remove an email from the suppression list. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like add_suppression and list_suppressions.

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?

Explicitly says to use it only after confirming the recipient wants to receive mail again, which gives a clear precondition. It does not name alternative tools or describe the inverse add_suppression workflow.

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