communications_unsubscribe_contact

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'unsubscribe' implies a mutation operation, the description doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this action is reversible, what permissions are required, whether it affects historical data, or what the expected response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's apparent purpose and gets straight to the point without unnecessary elaboration.

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 3 parameters (including legal basis parameters that suggest compliance requirements), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the parameters, behavioral implications, or what happens after the unsubscribe operation. Given the complexity suggested by the legal basis parameters, more context is needed for proper tool usage.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 3 parameters (one required, one with enum values), the description provides no information about any parameters. It doesn't mention the contactId parameter (which is required), nor does it explain the legal basis parameters that appear in the schema. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema 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?

The description clearly states the action ('unsubscribe') and target ('a contact from all email communications'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'communications_update_subscription_status' or 'communications_update_preferences', which might offer similar functionality.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools related to communications and subscriptions (e.g., 'communications_update_subscription_status', 'communications_update_preferences'), but the description doesn't indicate when this specific unsubscribe operation is appropriate versus those other tools.

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