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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses GM-only authorization, the persistent side effect of auto-matching future emails when remember is true, and the privacy behavior of storing only an HMAC key, never the address. This adds meaningful behavioral context without contradicting the annotations.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, followed by the optional remember behavior and the permission constraint, each earning its place.

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?

The description is largely complete for a tool with a rich output schema and fully documented parameters. The only notable gap is the absence of explicit routing guidance against related PBEM email tools, such as dismissing instead of resolving.

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 input schema already documents all three parameters with 100% coverage, including the HMAC-key note on remember. The description restates some of this information but does not substantially expand on the schema's parameter meanings.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Resolve an unmatched inbox email to an accepted campaign member.' It clearly separates this from siblings like play_dismiss_pbem_email and play_consume_pbem_emails by targeting unmatched emails and assigning them to a player.

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 clear context about when the tool is appropriate: an unmatched inbox email should be resolved to an accepted campaign member, and GM-only restricts who may call it. It does not explicitly contrast with dismissal or bulk-consumption siblings, so it lacks explicit when-not guidance.

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