subscription_status_set

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states what is updated but omits critical behavioral details such as required API key handling, rate limits, whether changes are reversible, and error/partial-success behavior for batch updates.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Every word 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?

For a multi-channel subscription mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks essential context about authentication, batching, and return behavior. It covers the what but not the how or side effects.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all seven parameters with field-level descriptions and an enum for subscription_state. The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides, making a baseline 3 appropriate.

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 states a specific verb (Update) and resource (subscription group status for users) and clarifies the channel scope (email/SMS/WhatsApp). It is clear, but does not differentiate itself from the sibling subscription_status_set_v2 or subscription_status_get, which is a notable gap given the near-identical names.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the v2 variant or subscription_user_status. The description mentions update but offers no context, prerequisites, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely.

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