avanan_add_exception

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

No annotations exist, so the description has to carry the behavioral disclosures. It does state the side-effect at a high level and highlights a validation requirement, but it does not mention reversibility, whether it applies unilaterally to future mail, or possible side effects. Valuable but not complete.

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?

Two sentences with no filler; the action is front-loaded and the most important constraint immediately follows. Every word earns its place.

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?

This is a 21-parameter mutation with no output schema and no annotations. The description only covers the core action and the minimum-match-field rule. It does not explain how the optional modifiers (actionNeeded, quarantineAll, ignoringSpfCheck, matchOnlyFuture, *_Matching) interact, nor what the tool returns. That leaves a substantial part of the call surface unexplained.

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 descriptions cover 71% of parameters, so the baseline is moderate. The description adds a crucial cross-field invariant that the schema does not capture: at least one match field from a specific list is required, which meaningfully guides agent input 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?

States a specific action and resource: 'Add a whitelist or blacklist entry.' This immediately differentiates it from the get/list/update/delete exception siblings and within exception CRUD. No ambiguity about the core 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?

Gives a useful invocation context (at least one match field) and the verb 'Add' implies creation rather than update/delete. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over update_exception or list_exceptions, so the choice is left inferred.

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