Unsubscribe subscriber

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: the effect scope ('delivery, audience membership, published data or irreversible state') and the mandatory confirm guard, telling the agent a write requires explicit user intent. The effect list is somewhat hedged ('May affect'), which keeps it short of a 5.

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 short sentences with the destructive scope front-loaded and the confirm requirement last. Nothing is padded; it could be marginally tightened but there is no wasted framing.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential unknowns: that it is irreversible, what it touches, and that confirm=true is mandatory. It does not state reversibility of the unsubscribe (e.g., whether the subscriber can be resubscribed) or auth/scope requirements, leaving minor 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 100% – account, confirm, and subscriber_id each carry their own schema description, including the caution on confirm. The description only echoes the confirm requirement, adding no syntax, format, or defaulting detail beyond the schema, 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?

The description states a specific verb+resource ('Unsubscribe subscriber'), matching the title but naming the operation precisely. It does not differentiate itself from a nearby sibling like delete_subscriber, which is a plausible confusion given both remove a subscriber, but the intent is unambiguous on its own.

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 one hard prerequisite ('Requires confirm=true'), which is genuine usage guidance. However, it offers no when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to siblings such as delete_subscriber or untag_subscriber, so the agent must infer which removal operation is appropriate.

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