Remove Suppression

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the consequence (the address will receive emails again), the risk of deliverability harm if suppressed due to bounce/complaint, and the required user consent step. This is thorough and transparent.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core action. Each safety sentence provides essential operational guidance without redundancy, earning its place in the text.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers the action, consequences, and user interaction requirements, making it fully self-contained for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

The schema already describes idOrEmail as 'Suppression ID or email address' with 100% coverage. The description reiterates this and adds minor context about referencing the email address during double-check, but does not significantly enrich parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 removes an entry from the suppression list by ID or email address and explains the effect (allowing the address to receive emails again). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add-suppression, list-suppressions, get-suppression, and batch-remove-suppressions.

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 explicit mandatory usage guidance: double-check with the user that they want to remove the suppression, reference the email address when doing so, warn about deliverability risks, and only proceed after explicit user confirmation. This clearly defines when and when not to use the tool.

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