communications_update_subscription_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Update' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, whether changes are reversible, what happens to contacts not in the updates array, or any rate limits. It mentions 'multiple contacts' which hints at batch capability, but lacks details about batch size limits or error handling.

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 gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with a clear primary function, though the brevity comes at the cost of completeness.

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 batch mutation tool with 2 parameters (one being a complex array of objects), 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after the update, what errors might occur, or provide any context about the subscription system. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without additional documentation.

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 schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description mentions 'subscription status for multiple contacts' which hints at the purpose of the updates array, but doesn't explain what subscriptionId represents, what the status enum values mean, or the significance of legalBasis fields. It fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema descriptions.

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 ('update') and resource ('subscription status for multiple contacts'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like communications_subscribe_contact and communications_unsubscribe_contact by specifying batch updates rather than single-contact operations. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what system or context these subscriptions belong to.

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 like communications_subscribe_contact or communications_unsubscribe_contact. It doesn't mention prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases. The agent must infer usage from the name and parameters alone.

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