remove_suppression

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the effect of removal and a meaningful risk related to hard bounces and AWS bounce-rate enforcement. Still, it does not clarify scope-dependent behavior, idempotency, or what happens if the suppression does not exist.

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 concise and front-loaded with the primary action, followed by a relevant warning. Both sentences serve a purpose, though the hard-bounce sentence is grammatically awkward at the end ('AWS enforces on').

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 core purpose and a key risk are covered, making the description mostly adequate for a simple two-parameter tool. However, it lacks guidance on the optional scope parameter, default behavior, and return value, leaving some gaps for an agent trying to invoke it correctly.

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 should compensate by explaining parameters. It only refers to the address generically and says nothing about the scope parameter, leaving its semantics entirely to the schema enum. It adds little meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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: removing a suppression so the address can be mailed again. It is specific enough to differentiate from adding or listing suppressions, though it does not explicitly reference sibling tools or frame itself as the inverse of 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?

The purpose implies when to use it—when an address should be re-enabled for mailing. It also provides a caution against carelessly removing hard-bounce suppressions, which is useful guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or give a direct when-not-to-use condition.

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