hey_remove_reply_later

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

Annotations cover safety flags (idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, readOnlyHint=false), and the description adds substantive context beyond them: the "Done" status change, the move back to the Imbox, and the return shape {success, error?}. It also discloses reversibility and the exact recovery path, which is not derivable from the annotations.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct information (action, side effects, return shape, prerequisite, reversal). The primary action is front-loaded and there is no redundant restatement of the 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 single-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description supplies everything needed: the source of the required id, the side effects, the return shape, and the undo path. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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% and the parameter is documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by stating where to obtain posting_id (hey_list_reply_later), giving the agent a concrete sourcing workflow rather than just a type.

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 (remove) and resource (email from Reply Later) and goes further by naming the observable side effects: marking the item "Done" and moving it back to the Imbox. This distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like hey_set_aside, hey_reply_later, and hey_unset_aside.

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?

Explicitly names the prerequisite source for posting_id (hey_list_reply_later) and describes the inverse operation (hey_reply_later with topic_id), which is strong routing. It lacks an explicit when-not condition, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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