Update Suppression

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The one behavioral fact it discloses is the partial-update constraint (at least one field required); it says nothing about permission requirements, whether omitted fields are preserved, side effects of changing type or email (e.g., re-verification), or whether updates are reversible.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the key constraint. Nothing is wasted, though the brevity comes at the cost of substance rather than being efficiently complete.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits return behavior, error conditions (invalid ID, invalid email), and the effects of changing suppression type. An agent can call it, but cannot predict the outcome or failure modes.

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 each of the five parameters is already documented, including the enum for type and the ISO 8601/null semantics of keep_until. The description adds only the cross-parameter constraint that at least one updatable field must be supplied — useful, but marginal beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update an existing suppression'), which is unambiguous. It does not distinguish this from siblings such as create-suppression, delete-suppression, or get-suppression, though the naming pattern in the sibling set makes the intent inferable.

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?

'Update an existing suppression' plus 'At least one field must be provided' implies the tool is for partial modification of an existing record. However, it never says when to use this versus delete-suppression (to remove) or create-suppression (to add), nor does it state prerequisites such as needing a valid sup_xxx ID or email.

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