communications_unsubscribe_contact

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Unsubscribe') which implies a mutation, but doesn't mention permissions required, whether the change is reversible, rate limits, or what happens to existing subscriptions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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?

The description is a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and appropriately sized for the tool's apparent complexity. Every word earns its place in conveying the essential purpose.

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 mutation tool with 3 parameters (one with complex enum values), 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the legal basis parameters, return values, error conditions, or behavioral implications. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without additional context.

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%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'contact' which hints at 'contactId', but provides no information about the two additional parameters ('portalSubscriptionLegalBasis' and 'portalSubscriptionLegalBasisExplanation') or their purposes. The description adds minimal value beyond what's implied by the tool name.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Unsubscribe') and target ('a contact from all email communications'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'communications_update_subscription_status' or 'communications_update_preferences' which might handle similar functionality, preventing a perfect score.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'communications_update_subscription_status' or 'communications_update_preferences' from the sibling list. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative use cases, leaving the agent without contextual decision-making help.

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