add_suppressions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two useful traits: a 10,000-value per-call ceiling and the side effect that matching leads are marked suppressed. It omits permission requirements, reversibility, idempotency, and any note on partial failures within a large batch.

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 core action and then the volume limit and accepted formats. Nothing is padded and the limits appear before the side-effect note.

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 simple two-parameter, no-output-schema tool the description is close to sufficient: it covers what gets suppressed and the batch limit. It falls short on the unexplained `reason` parameter and on what the caller should expect back, since no output schema exists to fill that gap.

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 must compensate. It fully explains the `values` parameter (emails or @domain format, up to 10,000), but the `reason` parameter is never mentioned, leaving one of two parameters undocumented in both the schema and the description.

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 (suppress) and specific resources (email addresses or whole domains), plus the accepted domain syntax. No sibling tool performs suppression, so the agent can distinguish it from add_leads_to_campaign or list_leads at a glance.

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 never says when to reach for this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state prerequisites (e.g., whether suppression applies retroactively to existing campaigns or leads). Usage must be inferred entirely from the verb.

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