communications_update_subscription_status

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 'Update' implies a mutation operation, the description doesn't address important behavioral aspects: whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, what happens on partial failures, or what the response format looks like. The description is too minimal for a batch 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 extremely concise - a single sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and uses efficient language. While potentially too brief for a complex tool, it earns full marks for conciseness.

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 (one complex), 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the tool's behavior, parameters, or expected outcomes. The minimal description leaves too many gaps for effective agent use.

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 2 parameters (one being a complex array), the description provides no parameter information beyond what's implied by the tool name. It doesn't explain what 'subscriptionId' refers to, the structure of 'updates', or the meaning of the enum values in the nested objects. 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 ('Update') and target ('subscription status for multiple contacts'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'communications_subscribe_contact' or 'communications_unsubscribe_contact', which appear to handle individual contact subscriptions.

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's no mention of prerequisites, when batch updates are appropriate versus individual operations, or how this differs from sibling tools like 'communications_subscribe_contact' and 'communications_unsubscribe_contact'.

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