remove_suppression

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden, yet it only says the entry is removed. It does not say the address becomes mailable again, whether the call errors when the address is not suppressed, whether it is idempotent, or what permissions are required for this account-level mutation.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though the terseness leaves little room for the operational detail an agent would want.

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 tool with no output schema this is roughly adequate, but with no annotations the description should mention the side effect (the address will receive mail again) and the not-found behavior to be fully 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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Email address to unsuppress'), so the schema already fully documents it. The description's word 'address' adds only marginal clarity, matching the baseline for high schema 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?

States a specific verb (remove) and resource (suppression list entry) with the object named, so an agent can tell it apart from add_suppression and list_suppressions by verb alone. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings or the scope of the removal.

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?

No statement of when this should be invoked versus add_suppression or list_suppressions, and no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the verb.

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