Delete Suppressions

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

The description adds significant context beyond the annotations: it reveals that deletion actually means reactivation, that SpamComplaint suppressions are excluded, and that the operation is blocked in read-only mode. These details complement the destructiveHint and readOnlyHint annotations without contradicting them. The 50-address limit is also disclosed. This is useful behavioral information.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences, with the main action and limit in the first, and two key exceptions in the second. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 moderately simple tool with 2 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the core action, a key exception, a usage restriction, and a limit. It could explicitly mention the inverse relationship with create_suppressions or describe error/return behavior, but the presence of an output schema reduces that need. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to use the tool 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?

Both parameters are already fully described in the input schema (100% coverage): stream_id includes a default and 'Message stream ID', while email_addresses says 'Up to 50 addresses to remove/reactivate.' The tool description mostly repeats this information and adds only a small context clue ('from a stream's suppression list'). With full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not materially enrich parameter meaning.

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 uses the specific verb 'Remove' with a clear resource ('stream's suppression list') and explains the action ('reactivate them'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like create_suppressions and list_suppressions by framing it as removal/recovery rather than addition or listing. It also includes a constraint (SpamComplaint suppressions cannot be deleted), making the purpose even more precise.

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?

Usage is implied: the tool should be used when you want to re-enable previously suppressed addresses. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like create_suppressions or list_suppressions, nor does it state clear conditions for when not to use it beyond the SpamComplaint exception. The read-only mode note is a constraint but not an alternative.

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