Delete Subscriber Bounces

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes one genuinely useful fact beyond that: the operation removes ALL bounce records for the subscriber, not a single one. It says nothing about irreversibility, permissions, or whether the subscriber itself is retained.

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?

A single sentence with the destructive verb and the scope front-loaded; there is no filler and nothing redundant with the schema or annotations.

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 one-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and complete destructive/idempotent annotations, the description supplies enough to call it correctly. Minor gaps remain around what exactly is cleared (all campaigns vs. current) and whether the subscriber record survives.

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 schema only says 'Numeric id.', so the description's phrase 'for a single subscriber' does real work by identifying the id as a subscriber id rather than a bounce id — a meaningful disambiguation against sibling tools like delete_bounce. It does not add format or validity constraints 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 ('Deletes'), a specific resource ('all bounce records') and a scope ('for a single subscriber'), which separates it from listmonk_delete_bounce (one bounce) and listmonk_delete_bounces (bulk/global). It does not name a sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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 per-subscriber scope implies when to reach for it, but there is no explicit routing guidance against listmonk_delete_bounce, listmonk_delete_bounces, or listmonk_get_subscriber_bounces for inspection first. The agent must infer the choice from the tool name.

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