emails_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Update' implying a mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 front-loaded and appropriately sized for the basic information it conveys, though it lacks depth.

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 (mutation tool with nested objects, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the update process, required fields, or behavioral aspects, making it inadequate for an agent to use the tool effectively without additional 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 schema has 0% description coverage, so parameters are undocumented. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond the schema, failing to explain what emailId refers to (e.g., an identifier) or what properties contains (e.g., updatable fields like subject, status). It doesn't compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 the action ('Update') and resource ('an existing email record'), which provides a basic purpose. However, it's vague about what specifically gets updated (e.g., properties like subject, status) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like emails_batch_update or emails_create, which handle similar email operations.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an emailId), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like emails_batch_update for multiple emails or emails_create for new records, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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