Remove an opt-out

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds consequential context beyond them: the consent violation risk, the required confirm flag, and the environment-flag precondition that can make the call fail. It does not describe the response, but no output schema exists and the preconditions are the higher-value disclosure.

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 front-loaded sentences: effect, condition, then mechanical prerequisites. Every sentence carries distinct information and no sentence is padding.

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, idempotent messaging-consent mutation with no output schema, the description supplies the consent rationale, the when-to-use condition, and both execution preconditions. An agent has everything needed to decide and to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 67%; confirm is fully documented in the schema and the description only echoes it, while phone_number has a pattern but no description in either place. The description clarifies the confirm semantics at a workflow level (user confirmed opt-in) but adds no format or routing detail for phone_number or channel, so it sits at the baseline for a mid-coverage 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?

The description states a specific action and its effect in one line: 'Allow messages to a number again.' The word 'again' makes clear this reverses a prior opt-out, distinguishing it from add_opt_out, check_opt_out and list_opt_outs without the agent needing to open 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?

It gives explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: only after the person has explicitly opted back in (e.g. texting START), with the consequence spelled out ('messaging someone who opted out breaks consent rules'). It also names the preconditions (confirm: true, VOBIZ_ENABLE_MESSAGING=true), leaving nothing to inference.

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