convert_eml_to_bundle

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explains the core conversion and source handling (copy/move/delete), including that delete is destructive. However, it omits side effects like disk space, file permissions, or time cost. It also doesn't mention whether the operation is reversible. Adequate but not exhaustive.

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 (a few sentences) and front-loaded with the primary action. It logically flows from purpose to source_handling options to return format. However, it could be more structured by grouping related parameters or adding a brief overview of all parameter categories.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (15 parameters, no annotations, no schema param descriptions), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain most options (preset, thread mode, various stripping flags). While the output schema exists and the description mentions return fields, it does not provide enough context for correct invocation of all parameters.

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%, meaning no parameter descriptions in the schema. The description only elaborates on source_handling. The other 14 parameters (preset, thread_mode, strip_signatures, etc.) are entirely undocumented in both schema and description. This is a major gap; the description should compensate but does so minimally.

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 tool converts .eml to a self-contained bundle with markdown and attachments. It specifies the output structure (directory) and source handling options. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like convert_eml or convert_directory, missing an opportunity to help the agent choose the right tool.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. Given siblings like convert_eml and convert_directory, explicit usage context would be valuable. Without annotations, the description should bear this burden but fails.

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