suppress_many

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the core effect (those addresses will no longer be mailed) and the failure mode if skipped. However, it leaves important behavioral traits unstated: whether the operation is idempotent, whether it merges with existing suppressions, or what happens when the 10,000-item cap is exceeded. The description frames purpose more than behavior.

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 with zero waste, and the core action is front-loaded ahead of the use-case framing. Minor issues: 'at once' is momentarily ambiguous (bulk quantity vs. rate limiting) and 'the path for' is a casual construction, but every sentence earns its place.

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 fully covers the 'why and when' of the tool, which is the most important context for a bulk-suppression operation. But with no annotations and no output schema, operational completeness suffers: parameter selection semantics (scope/reason) are absent, and edge-case behavior (duplicate emails, limit overflow, reversibility) is unknown. Adequate for a simple list-mutation tool, thin for one with two undocumented enums.

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 mentions no parameters. Only 'many addresses' loosely hints at the required emails array; the scope enum (all/transactional/marketing) and reason enum (manual/list_hygiene/unsubscribe) are completely unexplained, so an agent cannot determine correct values. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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?

States a clear bulk action ('Stop sending to many addresses at once') with a concrete resource (a list of addresses). The 'many at once' phrasing differentiates it from singular suppression siblings like add_suppression/remove_suppression, and the unsubscribe-list import framing adds specificity. It loses a point for never using the word 'suppress' and relying on the informal verb 'stop sending to', which is slightly imprecise.

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?

Gives a concrete trigger scenario: importing another provider's unsubscribe list before a first campaign, plus a consequence warning ('Without it, everyone who already opted out there gets mailed again here'). This is clear context for when to invoke the tool, but it names no explicit alternative or when-not-to-use condition, stopping short of a 5.

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