create-focused-inbox-override

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining that future messages are consistently classified according to the override, and that the tool acts as an upsert (creating or updating). This complements the destructiveHint=true annotation, which signals state modification. The description lacks mention of rate limits or permissions but provides sufficient behavioral insight.

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 description is concise with a clear first sentence defining the purpose, followed by a tip and instructions. The use of an emoji and line breaks adds visual clarity but slightly reduces formality. Overall, it is well-structured and front-loaded, though the tip could be integrated more smoothly.

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 the tool has no output schema and parameters with nested objects, the description covers the main use case but omits return values and error conditions. It explains the upsert behavior and SMTP address resolution, but does not address optional parameters or the openWorldHint annotation. The description is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 description includes a tip with an example body structure, specifying that classifyAs must be 'focused' or 'other' and showing the senderEmailAddress format. This adds practical value over the schema, which already lists these enums and properties. However, it does not explain the optional parameters includeHeaders and excludeResponse, leaving a gap.

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 clearly states the tool creates an override for a sender by SMTP address to classify future messages as focused or other. It distinguishes itself from siblings like delete-focused-inbox-override and update-focused-inbox-override by explaining its upsert behavior, making the purpose specific and actionable.

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?

The description advises resolving SMTP addresses via list-users or mail headers and warns not to invent addresses. However, it does not clarify when to use this tool versus the dedicated update-focused-inbox-override sibling, as it claims to update existing overrides. This ambiguity could confuse an AI agent about which tool to invoke.

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