update_mail

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 reveals that the operation mutates mail state and names common update targets, and it adds the mail:manage scope requirement. However, it does not explain patch merge semantics, side effects of folder changes, or response behavior.

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?

One efficient sentence with concrete examples and a scope note, all front-loaded. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a free-form patch object, the description provides enough to infer the basic call shape and intent, but it omits details like valid field formats, folder semantics, and return values. It is minimally adequate but has clear 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?

The schema only documents patch generically as 'Fields to update, as a JSON object', and id has no description. The description adds useful examples (read/unread, flags, folder) that clarify patch contents, but it does not explain id or the exact shape of the patch object.

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 specific action ('Update') on a clear resource ('mail state') and gives concrete examples (read/unread, flags, folder). It is distinguishable from sibling tools like update_mailbox because it targets mail state rather than mailbox settings.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_mail, update_mailbox, or delete_mail. 'Scope: mail:manage' indicates a permission requirement but does not explain usage conditions or when another tool would be more appropriate.

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