Delete Suppression

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the functional effect and the required user confirmation. It omits other mutation-relevant traits: whether the action is reversible (re-creatable via create-suppression), what happens if the ID doesn't exist, permission/auth requirements, and what the response contains.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and its effect, followed by the safety precondition. No filler and nothing repeated from structured fields.

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 single-parameter deletion with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the what and the confirm-before-calling rule but leaves post-call behavior (success/failure, idempotency, not-found handling) undocumented. Adequate but with clear gaps for a destructive operation.

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 coverage is 100% and the id property already documents the accepted forms ('Suppression ID (sup_xxx) or email address'). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb (remove) and resource (suppression) plus the downstream consequence: emails to that address are allowed again. That distinguishes it from create-suppression and list-suppressions, though it never explicitly contrasts with update-suppression, which is the nearest ambiguous sibling.

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?

It supplies a real precondition — 'confirm with the user' before calling — which is genuinely useful for a destructive action. However, it offers no when-to-use versus update-suppression or when-not-to-use guidance, so routing between the two suppression-editing tools is left to inference.

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