add_suppression

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the meaningful trait that suppressing is 'SAFE' and stops future sends, but it does not disclose other important aspects like idempotency, whether it overwrites an existing suppression, permission requirements, or the response format. This is minimal for a mutation tool.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no irrelevant details. Every word adds value: the action, the default list, and the safety implication. It is appropriately concise.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action and effect but omits details about the 'kind' parameter values and the relationship to remove_suppression. It is minimally sufficient but leaves room for clarification in operational contexts.

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%, and the description only partially compensates. It clarifies that 'email' is the address and notes the default for 'kind' (global unsubscribes), but it does not explain any other possible values for 'kind' or the format/validation of 'email'. This leaves the optional parameter underdocumented.

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 ('Add an address to a suppression list') with a specific resource and even notes the default kind. It differentiates from siblings like remove_suppression by emphasizing this is the 'add' operation and highlights the effect of stopping future sends.

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 implies usage by explaining the safety and effect, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when to use this instead of remove_suppression or check_suppression. The 'SAFE direction' note gives some context, but lacks direct comparison with sibling tools.

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