update-focused-inbox-override

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

Annotations indicate destructive (true) and openWorld (true), but the description adds critical behavioral details: cannot change senderEmailAddress, only classifyAs is mutable, and side effects like display name updates via POST. No contradiction with 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?

The description is somewhat verbose and includes a TIP block that repeats information from the main text. It could be more concise by merging the tips into the main description without redundancy.

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's complexity (4 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description adequately covers core behavior, constraints, and edge cases. The missing output schema is acceptable as the description doesn't need to explain return values if none exist.

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 75%, and the description adds a concrete body example ({ classifyAs: 'focused' } or { 'other' }), enhancing understanding of the classifyAs parameter. However, other parameters like inferenceClassificationOverrideId, includeHeaders, excludeResponse are not explained further beyond the 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 explicitly states the tool updates the classifyAs field of an existing override. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools (create, delete, list) by specifying the unique operation and scope.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance (only for classifyAs changes), when-not-to-use (for SMTP address or display name changes), and alternative actions (delete+recreate for SMTP, POST for display name). The TIP block reinforces this with examples.

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