Convert email to bundle

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, and the description usefully adds that the original .eml is copied and left untouched, plus that unsupported modes are rejected rather than silently downgraded. It lists the returned fields, giving concrete expectations. No contradiction with annotations; only missing detail is failure behavior (e.g., existing bundle directory).

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 output artifact is described first, then the source_handling caveat, then the return shape — a sensible front-loaded order. Paragraph breaks are used well. Minor redundancy: the return JSON is listed despite an output schema existing.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return-value recap is not strictly needed, and the description covers artifact creation and the source-preservation contract. But with 15 parameters at 0% schema coverage and no mention of the preset/thread options that materially change output, an agent cannot choose parameters confidently from this definition alone.

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% across 15 parameters, and the description documents only source_handling. The four enums (preset, thread_mode, thread_order, source_handling) and the ten boolean knobs (strip_signatures, embed_inline_images, include_all_headers, etc.) are left entirely to name inference, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 gives a specific verb and resource — convert a .eml file into a self-contained bundle of markdown plus extracted attachments — and clarifies what the output artifact is. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling convert_eml, so the caller must infer the difference from the 'bundle' vs. single-conversion wording.

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 clearly states the MCP-level constraint: source_handling only accepts 'copy' here, and 'move'/'delete' must go through the CLI or Python API. That is a genuine when/when-not statement. It stops short of routing between this tool and convert_eml/convert_directory/convert_mbox, which is the remaining gap.

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