gmail_create_filter

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world. The description adds one genuinely new trait — "Audited" — signaling the operation is logged, which annotations do not convey. However, it omits critical behavior: whether a duplicate filter is rejected or created, whether forwarding requires a verified address, and whether label names or IDs are expected.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action. Nothing is wasted, though the trade-off is that brevity is achieved through omission rather than precision.

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?

A mutation tool with nested objects, zero schema descriptions, and no output schema. The description leaves unexplored how to express filter criteria, what label references mean, and what happens on conflict or failure — significant gaps for an A-tool to call correctly the first time.

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 0% and the two required objects nest 8 sub-fields total (add_labels, remove_labels, forward_to, from, to, subject, query, has_attachment) with no descriptions anywhere. The description's "criteria + actions" only restates the parameter names, adding no semantics such as Gmail query syntax, label-name-vs-ID conventions, or forwarding prerequisites.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Creates a Gmail filter") and parenthetically names the two top-level inputs, which lets an agent distinguish it from gmail_list_filters and gmail_delete_filter in the sibling set. Clear but not embellished.

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 on when to create a filter versus listing, deleting, or editing one, and no prerequisites (e.g., that labels must exist first). The agent must infer context entirely.

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