communications_update_subscription_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it's an update operation. It doesn't disclose whether this is a destructive mutation, what permissions are required, how errors are handled for partial updates, rate limits, or what the response contains. 'Update' implies mutation, but critical behavioral details are missing for a batch operation tool.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for what it conveys. Every word earns its place, though it could benefit from additional context.

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 batch mutation tool with 2 parameters (including a complex array), 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the operation's impact, error handling, or return values. The agent lacks sufficient context to use this tool confidently without trial and error.

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 but adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what subscriptionId refers to, the structure of updates array, the meaning of status enum values, or legalBasis fields. The agent must deduce everything from the raw schema without semantic context.

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 'Update subscription status for multiple contacts' clearly states the action (update), target resource (subscription status), and scope (multiple contacts). It distinguishes from sibling tools like communications_subscribe_contact and communications_unsubscribe_contact by specifying batch/multiple operations. However, it doesn't explicitly mention the subscriptionId parameter's role.

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 like communications_subscribe_contact or communications_unsubscribe_contact. It doesn't mention prerequisites, error conditions, or when batch updates are preferred over individual operations. The agent must infer usage from the name and parameters alone.

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