gmail_create_filter

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not describe side effects, permissions required, or what constitutes success/failure. It merely restates the schema's field names (criteria, action) without adding any behavioral context, making it tautological for a create operation.

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 extremely concise: three short fragments with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then lists relevant fields, and every token earns its place. This is efficient and easily parseable.

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?

Despite an output schema existing, the description omits crucial context: it does not explain which subfields are required, how matching logic works, or provide examples. Given the nested objects and lack of annotations, the description is too sparse to fully enable correct usage, especially for a creation tool with potential side effects.

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 schema is generic (objects with additionalProperties), but the description compensates by listing the expected subfields: criteria: {from, to, subject, query, hasAttachment} and action: {addLabelIds, removeLabelIds, forward}. This adds meaning beyond the schema, though it does not explain the semantics of each field or their types.

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 clear action and resource: 'Create a Gmail filter.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like gmail_list_filters and gmail_delete_filter, and the specific verb-resource pairing leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It simply lists the input fields without any contextual advice, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and sibling set.

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