suppress_lead

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

The description goes beyond the `destructiveHint` annotation by detailing side effects: cancels pending sends, marks rows suppressed, last-write-wins relabeling, and the fact that notes are accepted but not persisted. This provides complete transparency beyond what annotations offer.

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 but packs in all critical details. The structure is front-loaded with the core purpose, then details. Minor improvement: could break into bullet-style for even quicker scanning, but overall 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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully covers input semantics, side effects, behavioral traits (last-write-wins), and caveats (no un-suppress). It leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does or its consequences for a 3-parameter tool.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates: it explains that `reason` is fixed to 'manual' (const), `note` is accepted but not persisted, and `email` is required. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 specifies a clear verb ('suppress') and resource ('email address tenant-wide'), and distinguishes its purpose as the manual opt-out path for cases the typed-unsubscribe matcher misses. It names the exact inputs and effects, making the tool's role unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when to use ('manual opt-out path') and implicitly when not to use (bounce/complaint/unsubscribe are handled automatically elsewhere). It also warns there is no un-suppress tool and explains the last-write-wins behavior, guiding appropriate use.

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