assistantmail_update_inbound_policy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the update is additive or replaces the entire policy, whether allowedSenders is required or optional for certain policy values, or any side effects (e.g., immediately affecting incoming mail routing). This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 a single clear sentence with no filler. It is concise and front-loaded with the core action, though it sacrifices behavioral detail and parameter explanation for brevity.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. An agent cannot know the full semantics of the policy values, the role of allowedSenders, or what happens after the update. Sibling tools like get_inbound_policy and update_mailbox exist, so a bit more contrast would help.

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 0%, and the description names no parameters. The schema shows 'policy' with an enum and 'allowedSenders' as an array, but the description does not explain how these interact (e.g., whether allowedSenders is only relevant for the 'list' policy). The enum values 'owner', 'list', and 'sent' are left entirely unexplained.

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 'Updates inbound email policy for the authenticated account' clearly identifies the verb ('updates'), resource ('inbound email policy'), and scope ('authenticated account'). It is specific enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like get_inbound_policy, though it does not explicitly name the sibling or elaborate on policy mechanics.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as get_inbound_policy or update_mailbox. The description states what it does but gives no context about prerequisites, typical scenarios, or when not to use it.

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