remove_suppression

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses key behaviors: it re-enables sending to non-compliant recipients, requires confirm=true, is rate-limited, and is audited. This goes well beyond basic mutation info and provides critical operational 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?

Two sentences: first states purpose, second packs critical warnings and constraints. Every word earns its place; no fluff or repetition.

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?

The description covers the tool's danger, confirm requirement, rate limit, and audit trail, which are essential for safe use. However, it omits details on the 'kind' parameter and expected outcome/return, making it slightly incomplete for full autonomous operation.

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. It only mentions that confirm=true is required, leaving kind and email semantics unexplained. No enums or allowed values are provided for 'kind', leaving the agent to guess.

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 starts with 'Remove an address from a suppression list,' which is a specific verb+resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by noting the 'DANGEROUS direction' (re-enabling sending to bounced/unsubscribed), contrasting with add_suppression.

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?

It implies when to use it: to re-enable sending to someone who bounced or unsubscribed, and warns of compliance violations. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it beyond the danger warning.

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