Update spam settings

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds real substance: the risk profile of low thresholds (deleting legitimate mail), a specific failure mode (unconfirmed-save) with a recovery path, and an explicit user-confirmation requirement. This is behavior an agent cannot infer from the annotations alone.

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?

Three compact sentences, all front-loaded: what it does, how to interpret the value, then the failure/recovery and safety instructions. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 no output schema, the description covers the effect, the risk of the value chosen, the error-recovery path, and the confirmation requirement. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it safely is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by explaining what high_score actually means in practice: lower values are stricter and risk deleting legitimate mail. That semantic framing is not derivable from the schema's 'Auto-delete score threshold, 1-50'.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource and scope: it sets the high_score threshold (1-50) for automatic spam deletion. This clearly separates it from the read-side sibling get_spam_settings and the whitelist/blacklist tools. An agent knows exactly what mutation this performs.

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?

Names get_spam_settings explicitly and the condition that should route the agent to it (an unconfirmed-save error before retrying), and instructs the agent to confirm with the user first. It does not give a full when-not-to-use rule, but the routing condition and the pre-call confirmation requirement are concrete.

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