communications_unsubscribe_contact

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose whether this is a destructive/irreversible operation, what permissions are required, whether it affects historical data, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 a single, efficient sentence that states the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with a clear primary action, though this conciseness comes at the expense of missing important contextual information.

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 3 parameters (including complex enums), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral implications, parameter meanings, success/failure outcomes, or differentiation from sibling tools, leaving critical gaps for proper tool invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate but provides no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'contactId' represents, when the legal basis parameters are required, or what the enum values mean. With 3 parameters (one with complex enum) completely undocumented, the description adds no value 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?

The description clearly states the verb ('Unsubscribe') and resource ('a contact from all email communications'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'communications_update_subscription_status' or 'communications_update_preferences' which might handle similar subscription modifications, preventing a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'communications_update_subscription_status' and 'communications_update_preferences' available, there's no indication whether this tool is for bulk unsubscriptions, irreversible actions, or specific use cases, leaving the agent without contextual usage direction.

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