create-focused-inbox-override

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

Annotations indicate mutation and destructiveness; description adds that overriding future messages is permanent, and that an existing override is updated rather than rejected. No contradiction.

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?

Description is front-loaded with purpose, but the tip block and extra notes add some redundancy. Could be slightly more concise.

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 output schema, description does not explain return value, but it adequately covers behavior, constraints, and resolution guidance. Fits well among sibling tools.

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 high (67%), but description adds meaningful context: example body structure, enum values for classifyAs, and clarification that ID is read-only. IncludeHeaders and excludeResponse are not elaborated but are self-explanatory in schema.

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 it creates an override for a sender identified by SMTP address, with the purpose of consistently classifying future messages. It distinguishes from siblings like delete-focused-inbox-override and update-focused-inbox-override.

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?

Provides explicit directions: use when needing to classify sender, includes body format example, enum constraints, and advises resolving sender address via list-users or mail header reading. Also notes that POST updates existing overrides, acting as upsert.

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