add_suppression

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses a key behavioral nuance: marketing scope preserves transactional mail. However, it does not mention whether suppression is permanent, reversible, affects scheduled sends, or is idempotent.

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 short sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded and the scope clarification earns its place. It is as concise as possible while adding useful information beyond the schema.

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, and zero schema-level parameter descriptions, the description is too thin. It omits important operational context like reversibility, bulk alternatives, and effects on different message types beyond the marketing scope note.

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 adds meaning for the 'scope' parameter but leaves 'email' and 'reason' entirely unexplained, and the full semantics of 'all' and 'transactional' scopes are only implied. This is insufficient for a schema that offers no descriptions.

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 tool's action ('Stop sending to an address') and adds a meaningful scoping detail about marketing scope. It is easily distinguishable from the sibling remove_suppression, though it does not explicitly name that alternative.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like suppress_many or remove_suppression. It explains one scope option's effect, but does not address tool-selection context or exclusions.

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