Update A Private Field In Company-Level Email Communication

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false. The description adds behavioral context: 'dispatch the notification or message' and 'returns the modified object on success'. This provides additional insight beyond 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 concise with 4 sentences. It is front-loaded with purpose and includes endpoint information. Could be slightly more streamlined, but overall efficient.

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 simple input schema (3 params, no output schema), the description covers purpose, usage, and required params. However, it lacks detail on what 'private' field means and the exact effect of dispatching a notification. The return value is mentioned succinctly.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description restates the required parameters but adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter.

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 verb 'Update' and the resource 'private field in Company-level Email Communication'. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying 'Company-level', contrasting with project-level email tools.

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 usage context ('dispatch the notification or message') and lists required parameters. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other email update tools) and does not mention when not to use it.

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