Gỡ suppression tài khoản

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds a useful behavioral limit (system-wide suppression cannot be removed) and a precondition, but says nothing about irreversibility, required permissions, or response, so with annotations carrying most of the burden a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Two tightly bounded sentences with the precondition front-loaded, so the key condition is read first. The bilingual duplication (Vietnamese then English) is mildly redundant but does not bloat the definition.

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 single-parameter, non-read-only mutation with annotations covering safety and no output schema required, the description supplies the key scope rule and precondition. Gaps are minor (auth/permission needs, confirmation of effect on future sends).

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?

Only one email parameter exists and schema_description_coverage is 0%, so the schema documents the type/pattern but no meaning. The description implies the email identifies the account whose suppression is being removed, but never states this explicitly, adding only marginal 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 names a specific verb (remove/"gỡ") and resource (suppression/"suppression") and scopes it precisely to the account level. It distinguishes the account-level layer from the non-removable system-wide layer, though it never references sibling tools directly, so it lands at 4 rather than 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?

It gives a concrete precondition for invocation: use it once the blocking cause has been handled. That is a real when-to-use signal, but no alternatives are named (e.g. mail_suppressions_list to inspect first), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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