Update A Private Field In Email Communication

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

Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only, not destructive, and not idempotent. The description adds that it 'returns the modified object on success' and includes the API endpoint, but does not disclose potential side effects, permission requirements, or constraints on the private field. It does not contradict 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 five sentences long, efficient, and front-loaded with the primary action. The second sentence is somewhat redundant and could be removed, but overall it is well-structured and 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, the description mentions the return value. However, it lacks explanation of the 'private' field's purpose in email communications and does not differentiate between project-level and company-level contexts (noting the sibling tool). The description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with parameter descriptions. The description lists the required parameters and repeats the endpoint, but adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 email communication', including the project scope. It distinguishes the tool from siblings by specifying the private field and the endpoint, but the phrase 'dispatch the notification or message related to Emails' slightly muddies the purpose.

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 includes a vague instruction 'Use this to dispatch the notification or message related to Emails,' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_a_private_field_in_company_level_email_communication' or other email tools. No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are provided.

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