Start Email Unlock

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

Annotations already declare it non-read-only and destructive; the description adds real value beyond them by disclosing idempotency, the mandatory cost-confirmation gate, and the constraint that only genuine catalog emails (including YouTube channel emails) are unlockable. It stops short of describing failure/partial-charge behavior or how credits are actually consumed.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the action and its gating condition front-loaded. Nothing is repeated from the annotations or schema that isn't needed to frame the call.

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 destructive, credit-charging mutation with no output schema, the definition should say what the caller receives (a job handle usable with get_email_unlock_job) and how the maximum_chargeable_unlocks cap behaves. Those gaps matter more here than for a read tool, though the safety gating it does document is solid.

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 80%, so campaign_id, confirm_cost, idempotency_key and recipient_target are already self-documenting; the description adds only the notion of explicit cost confirmation, which the schema also states. Notably, maximum_chargeable_unlocks has no schema description and the description does not explain it either, leaving the spend cap semantically undefined.

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 gives a specific verb and resource — 'Create an idempotent campaign email-unlock job' — and narrows the scope to 'only real catalog email addresses, including eligible YouTube channel emails'. It does not distinguish itself from the closely related get_email_unlock_job sibling, which is the natural companion call, so an agent gets the purpose but not the boundary between the two.

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?

'After explicit cost confirmation' implies a prerequisite, but the description states no when-to-use vs when-not-to-use conditions and never mentions the polling tool (get_email_unlock_job) or the readiness check (check_bulk_email_readiness) that would precede a paid unlock run. Usage is inferable from the purpose sentence rather than spelled out.

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