avanan_quarantine_events

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: the operation is high impact, reversible, returns task IDs, and requires user confirmation. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: the impact warning is front-loaded, the action is explicit, reversibility is stated, output is described, and the confirmation requirement is included. No filler or 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?

For a destructive operation with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: impact, reversibility, return type, and required user confirmation. It could be slightly more complete by explicitly distinguishing from avanan_quarantine_emails, but the core guidance is sufficient.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both scope and eventIds. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but with full schema coverage this is acceptable and meets the baseline.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'quarantine the emails behind one or more security events.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from restore-focused siblings by emphasizing that the action is driven by security event IDs and is reversible.

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 gives clear context: use when quarantining emails linked to security events, confirms reversibility via avanan_restore_events, and explicitly instructs the agent to confirm with the user before invoking. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling avanan_quarantine_emails, which is a minor gap.

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