unsubscribe_member

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully bears the transparency burden. It discloses preservation of history, error behavior (404 if not found), authentication requirements, rate limits, and support for read-only/dry-run modes. No contradictions.

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 with two succinct paragraphs and a bullet-style Args/Returns section. Purpose and key differentiators appear first. Every sentence adds value with no repetition or fluff.

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?

Given no annotations, input schema coverage of 0%, but presence of output schema (reducing need to detail return values), the description covers behavior, parameters, error handling, alternatives, authentication, and limits. It is fully complete for correct 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds rich meaning: list_id format (10-char alphanumeric, usage example, source from list_audiences), email_address validity and existence requirements. This far exceeds 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 action ('Unsubscribe a member'), the target ('from an audience'), and the key behavioral trait ('preserving profile and history for reporting'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like delete_member (permanent removal) and update_member (reversible).

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 tells when to use this tool vs. alternatives: reversible via update_member, use delete_member for GDPR removal. It also mentions authentication (API key) and concurrency limits (max 10 concurrent requests), providing clear context for invocation decisions.

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