associate_email

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, open-world, non-destructive mutation. The description adds meaningful behavior: the email is extracted server-side from a verified Google idToken and is not sent by the client, and the operation must precede oauth_login. It does not cover response behavior or idempotency, but the annotations reduce the burden.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then gives the precondition, error condition, data-flow constraint, and build requirement. Every sentence carries operational value with no filler.

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 two-parameter mutation with annotations and full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, timing, data source, and required payload construction. It does not describe the success response or post-call state, which is a minor gap given there is no output schema.

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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents both idToken and computedData, including server-side email extraction and the buildAssociateEmailComputedData helper. The description reinforces the security detail that the email is not client-provided, but largely repeats schema semantics, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific action and resource: linking the email claim from a Google ID token to the caller's wallet. It distinguishes this from oauth_login by explaining the precondition and the error condition that triggers this 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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: before oauth_login when the wallet has no associated email yet, with the concrete symptom that oauth-login returns 404/code 108. It also names the required helper buildAssociateEmailComputedData, leaving little ambiguity about invocation context.

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