emails_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation, implying mutation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified properties. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for its limited content and front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity (2 parameters with nested objects, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the input structure, behavioral implications, or expected outcomes, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively in context.

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 has 0% description coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description mentions 'email record' but doesn't explain what 'emailId' or 'properties' mean, nor does it clarify the complex nested structure with many fields like 'hs_email_subject'. It adds minimal semantic value beyond the bare schema.

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 'Update an existing email record' clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('email record'), but it's vague about what specific aspects can be updated and doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'emails_batch_update' or other update tools in the system. It provides basic purpose but lacks specificity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'emails_batch_update' or 'emails_create', nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing an existing email ID. It simply states what the tool does without contextual usage information.

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