zerodb_gmail_reply

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool uses a stored OAuth connection and sends from the connected account, indicating a mutation. However, it does not mention potential side effects like the reply being appended to the thread, failure modes, rate limits, or permission requirements. The description is adequate but not deeply transparent.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no redundant or extraneous information. Every clause adds value by explaining the action and the authentication mechanism.

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 tool has no output schema and no annotations. The description covers the core functionality and authentication but leaves gaps about the return value, error behavior, and prerequisites beyond the OAuth connection. Given the simplicity of the tool, it is adequate but could be more complete by mentioning what happens after a successful reply.

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 provides complete descriptions for all three parameters (thread_id, body, cc), achieving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already offers, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Reply to a Gmail thread') and the resource (Gmail thread) with the method (using stored Google OAuth). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like Slack send or calendar create by focusing on Gmail replies.

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 explains what the tool does but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. There are no exclusions or context about when this tool is preferred over other communication methods. Usage is implied from the tool's name and function, but not explicitly stated.

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