create-focused-inbox-override

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, so the description's mention of creating and updating overrides aligns with this. The description adds context about the update behavior (renaming a sender) and the required body structure, going beyond the annotation hints. No contradictions found.

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 five sentences, starting with the primary purpose. It includes a tip and important notes without being overly verbose. The structure is logical, though some redundancy (e.g., the tip repeats the body format) could be trimmed.

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?

The description covers purpose, required fields, update behavior, and address resolution. However, it does not mention what the response looks like after creation, error cases, or permissions. Given no output schema, more detail on return values would be beneficial. The openWorldHint annotation allows some leeway.

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 schema covers 75% of parameters. The description adds a concrete example of the body object (classifyAs and senderEmailAddress with fields) and specifies that classifyAs must be 'focused' or 'other'. This provides practical guidance beyond the schema's enum definition.

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 a Focused Inbox override for a sender identified by an SMTP address, specifying that future messages will be consistently classified. The verb 'create' and resource 'focused-inbox-override' are specific, and the tool is distinct from siblings like 'create-draft-email' or 'create-planner-task'.

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 provides clear context: it tells the agent to resolve the sender's address using list-users or recent mail headers, and explains that if an override already exists, the POST updates it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives.

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