Gỡ suppression tài khoản

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the operation's scope (account-level only) and a practical precondition, but does not mention whether removal is idempotent, what happens if the email is not suppressed, required permissions, or the response format. Moderate transparency.

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 compact sentences conveying condition, action, and limitation, with the key English summary up front. The Vietnamese and English phrases partly repeat, creating slight redundancy, but nothing is wasted overall.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers what the tool does and when to use it, but leaves open questions about error behavior, idempotency, and the exact input mapping. Adequate for selection and basic invocation, with clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description needed to explain the email parameter's role, but it never mentions 'email' or maps 'tài khoản' (account) to the email identifier. The parameter is simple and named, but the description adds no semantic value 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?

States a specific verb ('remove') and resource ('account-level suppression'), with a clear scope limitation that system-wide suppressions cannot be removed via this tool. This differentiates it from listing tools like mail_suppressions_list and from any broader suppression-removal operation.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition: use only after the blocking cause has been handled ('Khi đã xử lý nguyên nhân chặn'). It also states an exclusion: system-wide suppressions are not removable. It does not name a specific alternative tool, so it stops short of a full when/when-not/alternatives statement.

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