hey_list_set_aside

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds real behavioral detail the annotations do not cover: results come from a cache and force_refresh bypasses it, and the payload is the same shape as hey_list_emails. It omits cache scope/TTL, but that is a minor gap given the read-only safety profile is already declared.

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 short sentences, zero waste, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by cache behavior and the follow-up action. Every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully tells the agent the result set shape matches hey_list_emails and how to act on the returned postingId. Caching behavior and the removal path are covered; only finer details like refresh cost or list size limits are absent.

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% for the single force_refresh parameter, so the baseline is already covered. The description reinforces the semantics by explaining that true bypasses the cache, which adds practical meaning to the flag beyond the schema's terse wording.

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 ('List emails currently in the Set Aside stack') and places it against siblings by noting the result shape matches hey_list_emails and that removal is done via hey_unset_aside. An agent can distinguish this from hey_list_emails, hey_list_reply_later, and hey_list_collections without opening a schema.

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?

Gives clear operational context: results are cached unless force_refresh=true, and the returned postingId feeds hey_unset_aside. It stops short of an explicit 'use this instead of X when...' routing rule, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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