put--v3-domains-name-tracking-unsubscribe

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Update' implying a mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to existing settings. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 with zero waste—it directly states the tool's action and target. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter guidance (the description adds no context beyond the basic purpose), the description is inadequate. It should cover more about behavior, usage, and implications to be complete for an agent.

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 75% (3 out of 4 parameters have descriptions), so the schema does most of the work. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the 'name' parameter's role or providing examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is high but the description adds no extra value.

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 'Update unsubscribe tracking settings' clearly indicates a mutation operation ('Update') on a specific resource ('unsubscribe tracking settings'), which is better than a tautology. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'put--v3-domains-name-tracking-click' or 'put--v3-domains-name-tracking-open' that also update tracking settings for different aspects, leaving the scope somewhat vague.

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, prerequisites, or exclusions. Given the sibling tools include other tracking updates (click, open) and domain-related operations, the lack of differentiation means the agent must infer usage from the name alone, which is insufficient.

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