communications_unsubscribe_contact

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Unsubscribe' implies a mutation operation, the description doesn't specify whether this action is reversible, what permissions are required, whether it affects historical data, or what happens if the contact doesn't exist. It lacks important behavioral context for a mutation 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 that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with a clear primary function and gets straight to the point.

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 (one required, one with legal/enum values), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't address the legal compliance aspects suggested by the parameter names, doesn't explain what 'all email communications' encompasses, and provides no information about return values or error conditions.

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 for 3 parameters, the description doesn't mention any parameters at all. It fails to explain what 'contactId' represents, or the purpose of the two portalSubscriptionLegalBasis parameters that appear to be related to compliance/legal requirements. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the bare schema 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 specific action ('Unsubscribe') and resource ('a contact from all email communications'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from its sibling 'communications_subscribe_contact' by specifying the opposite operation.

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 implies usage context (managing email subscriptions) but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'communications_update_subscription_status' or 'communications_update_preferences'. No guidance is provided about prerequisites or when not to use it.

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