change_subscriber_status

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

Annotations already cover idempotency and destructiveness, and the description adds a genuine consequence beyond them: blocklisted subscribers are excluded from all campaigns. It does not explain the side effects of the 'disabled' state or whether the call fails on an unknown subscriber ID, leaving some behavioral gaps for a destructive mutation.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and constraints, then the blocklist side effect, then the sibling redirect. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 two-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and annotations declaring idempotency and destructiveness, the description covers purpose, allowed values, and semantic consequences. Only the response/error behavior and the effect of the 'disabled' status are unaddressed, and no output schema exists to cover them.

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 both parameters and the status enum are already documented structurally. The description repeats the three status values without adding format, validation, or ID-source guidance, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Change ... a subscriber's status') plus the exact enum of allowed values. The word 'only' scopes it against update_subscriber, and remove_subscriber is named outright, so an agent can differentiate it from siblings without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly routes deletion to remove_subscriber, and the phrase 'Change only a subscriber's status' implies other field edits belong to update_subscriber. It stops short of naming update_subscriber as the alternative for name/email/attribute changes, so the routing is clear but not fully spelled out.

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