communications_update_subscription_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Update' implies a mutation operation, the description doesn't address critical behavioral aspects like whether this requires specific permissions, what happens if some updates fail, whether changes are reversible, or any rate limits. The mention of 'multiple contacts' hints at batch behavior but lacks operational details.

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 extremely concise at just 5 words, front-loading the essential action and target. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient for quick comprehension.

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 no annotations, no output schema, 2 parameters (one complex), and 0% schema description coverage, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the legal basis requirements shown in the schema, doesn't describe what happens when updating multiple contacts, and provides no information about return values or error handling.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 2 parameters (one being a complex array of objects), the description provides no information about what 'subscriptionId' or 'updates' should contain. The schema shows detailed structure with enums for status and legalBasis, but the description doesn't mention these critical semantic elements, leaving parameters largely undocumented.

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 ('Update') and target ('subscription status for multiple contacts'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'communications_subscribe_contact' or 'communications_unsubscribe_contact', which appear to handle individual contact operations.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like the individual subscribe/unsubscribe tools. The description mentions 'multiple contacts' which implies batch operations, but doesn't explicitly state this as a distinguishing factor or provide any context about appropriate use cases.

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