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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds real context beyond them: the stored text is deleted and nothing will be answered any more, and the alternative preserves the text. It stops short of stating auth requirements or whether the clear is reversible, but the main consequence of destruction is disclosed.

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 waste; the destructive action and its scope come first, and the escape hatch to the sibling follows naturally.

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?

A single-parameter tool with full schema coverage and annotations that already carry the safety profile. The description covers purpose, effect, and alternative; nothing needed to call it correctly is missing, and no output schema is required for a clear operation.

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% and the address parameter's own description already explains the hello@example.com vs *@example.com catch-all format. The description only echoes "one address or catch-all", so it adds little beyond the schema – 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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Remove the saved out of office reply") and scope (one address or the domain catch-all). It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling setOutOfOffice, which is named explicitly.

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?

Provides an explicit alternative and the condition that selects it: use setOutOfOffice with enabled false to pause a reply while keeping its text. This is exactly the when/when-not routing an agent needs.

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