Batch Remove Suppressions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the effect ('addresses will start receiving emails again'), warns about deliverability risks, and mandates user confirmation. It does not cover all aspects like permissions or error handling, but it provides substantial context beyond the schema.

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 moderately concise, with three sentences covering purpose, effect, and safety. The final sentence is somewhat long but contains essential warnings. It is organized and each sentence contributes, though it could be tightened without losing meaning.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is fairly complete. It covers the key behavioral and safety aspects, parameter constraints, and the user-confirmation requirement. Missing details like return format or partial failure behavior are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds crucial meaning by stating 'provide exactly one of the two' and clarifying the purpose of each parameter (emails vs IDs), which goes beyond the schema's 'Cannot be used with' notes by emphasizing the exclusivity and necessity.

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 tool's function: 'Remove multiple entries from the suppression list in Resend in a single call' and specifies the two modes (by email or by ID). This distinguishes it from siblings like remove-suppression (single removal) and batch-add-suppressions (adding).

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 clear usage context, including the requirement to double-check with the user and obtain explicit confirmation before using. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for single removals, so it stops short of fully clarifying when-not-to-use compared to specific siblings.

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