unsuppress_market

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the timing ('within ~60s'), the active-state requirement ('active market suppression'), and the authorization scope ('admin:market_suppressions'). This goes beyond the bare action and gives useful behavioral context, though it doesn't describe error cases or return values.

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 two sentences, with the primary action in the first sentence and a supplementary scope note in the second. Every word earns its place; it is front-loaded with the verb and resource. No wasted text.

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 having no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, the timing effect, and the required scope. It does not explain behavior for non-existent or already-canceled suppressions, but for a simple one-parameter mutation tool, this is reasonably complete.

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 schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'id', with its own description 'Suppression id to cancel.' The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond restating 'by id'. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given the schema's strong coverage.

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: 'Cancel an active market suppression by id'. The verb 'Cancel' is unambiguous, the resource is 'market suppression', and the method 'by id' is explicit. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'suppress_market' which performs the opposite action.

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 gives clear context: this tool is used to cancel an active suppression, with the effect described. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the presence of the inverse sibling 'suppress_market' makes the intended usage obvious. The scope requirement also hints at conditions for use.

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