Send a JMAP request

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the description is not required to repeat that. It adds context about automatic auth, $VAR substitution, and attachments, which are useful behavioral traits. However, it does not elaborate on side effects, rate limits, or error handling, and it refers to help topics for further details.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences with no redundant information. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by essential input constraints and a pointer to help topics. Every sentence contributes meaning.

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 is complex (7 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), and the description covers the primary input logic but leaves many details to help topics. It does not describe the return format, error behavior, or the roles of parameters like using, dry_run, and credentials_dir, relying on the schema for those. Given the complexity, more guidance in the description would improve completeness.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the mutual exclusivity of ops and ops_file, specifying that ops can be a methodCalls array or full envelope, and noting that ops_file paths are relative to the credential directory. These details go beyond the schema descriptions.

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 states the tool sends JMAP method-call batches with automatic authentication, which clearly identifies the action and resource. It distinguishes from siblings (register and help) implicitly, since those serve different functions, but does not explicitly contrast them. The phrase 'JMAP method-call batch' is specific enough for an agent to understand its purpose.

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 the input modes (ops vs ops_file) and points to help topics for details, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. Since register and help are clearly different, the usage context is implied rather than stated. No exclusions or alternative tool guidance is provided.

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