email_server_config_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a mutation and mentions confirm, but it does not explain what happens to existing settings, whether values merge or replace, permission requirements, impact, or reversibility. The note 'confirm: Required' also conflicts with the schema, where confirm is optional with default false.

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 opening sentence is concise and front-loaded, and the Args block is tidy. However, the arg documentation is extremely sparse, and the inaccurate 'confirm: Required' undercuts the structure's usefulness.

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 mutating, server-wide configuration operation with no annotations and an open-ended values object, too much critical context is missing: valid configuration fields, confirmation semantics, permission needs, and effect on existing configuration. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for these gaps.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description needed to compensate. 'values: Config object' only restates the schema's object type and provides no hints about accepted keys or structure, especially since the schema allows additionalProperties. 'confirm: Required' adds no semantic value and is contradicted by the schema's required list.

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 verb and resource: 'Update global email configuration.' This is specific enough to distinguish it from read-only config tools, but it does not explicitly differentiate among sibling update tools like email_outbound_filter_update or db_server_config_update.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The usage is only implied by the tool name and the one-line purpose; an agent must infer when this is the right tool.

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