mailkite_add_suppression

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the suppression is permanent ('never sends to it again'), that reason defaults to manual, and that a management session token is required. These are useful behavioral details beyond the annotations, though it doesn't discuss reversibility or duplicate handling, which are partly covered by the idempotentHint.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action and includes the critical auth requirement. No filler or redundancy; every clause contributes.

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 simple mutation with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, the permanent effect, the default behavior, and the auth need. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 100%, so all parameters (email, reason, note) already have clear descriptions and examples. The description adds little beyond the schema—only the default reason and the token requirement, which is not a parameter. It meets the baseline but does not elevate.

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 'Suppress' and the resource 'an address', with the effect 'this account never sends to it again'. It distinguishes from siblings like list_suppressions and remove_suppression by the action and outcome.

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 implies when to use this tool (to add a suppression) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The sibling tools for listing and removing suppressions make the context clear, but the guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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