protected_senders

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses case-insensitive matching, glob vs substring semantics, default exclusion behavior in bulk_by_query, outright refusal in bulk_delete_messages, and per-call override behavior.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds only relevant pattern and bulk-operation details. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 low-complexity tool with optional parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. Minor gaps remain around return shape for reads and edge cases such as duplicates or invalid patterns.

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 0%, so the description needs to compensate. It explains the pattern syntax well and clarifies no-argument reads, but does not explicitly describe the add and remove array parameters beyond what their names imply.

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 pair: reading or editing a keep-list of protected senders. It also distinguishes the tool from bulk siblings by explaining that bulk operations will not touch these senders.

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?

It explicitly says when to use the tool, gives examples of valuable mail to protect, explains that no arguments means read-only access, and describes how bulk_by_query and bulk_delete_messages behave with this list.

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