Gỡ chặn gửi tới một email

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose a key consequence: removing the suppression shifts responsibility for future sends to the client. The phrase 'after fixing its cause' also warns that careless removal is unsafe. It does not describe irreversibility or permissions, but the main risk is covered for a one-parameter removal action.

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 two short clauses that front-load the action and then add the essential responsibility caveat, with no filler or restatement of the name. The bilingual repetition is compact and still minimal.

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 a single email parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core context: what action to take, the precondition, and the consequence. It does not specify return values or partial-failure behavior, but those are not critical for such a simple removal operation.

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 documentation coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, yet it never explicitly maps the email parameter to the address to be unblocked. The parameter name, the email format in the schema, and the title 'Gỡ chặn gửi tới một email' make the meaning inferable, but the description itself adds no parameter-level detail.

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 states a concrete action with a clear verb and resource: 'Remove a suppression after fixing its cause.' This is unambiguous and the title in Vietnamese reinforces that it unblocks sending to an email. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling mail_suppression_remove, so it stops short of a 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 an explicit precondition: remove only 'after fixing its cause,' and warns about responsibility for subsequent sends ('client accepts responsibility for future sends'). It does not mention alternative tools or list-check-before-remove, so it is not a full usage guide.

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