emails_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation, implying mutation, but doesn't mention required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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 extremely concise with a single sentence, 'Update an existing email record', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. While it may be under-specified, it earns full marks for brevity and clarity within its limited scope.

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 complexity (mutation tool with nested objects, 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover parameter meanings, behavioral traits, or usage context, making it inadequate for an AI agent to reliably invoke this tool without additional information.

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 2 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no information about parameters. It doesn't explain what 'emailId' refers to, what 'properties' contains, or how to structure the update. Given the low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameters largely undocumented.

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 'Update an existing email record' clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('email record'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'emails_batch_update' or 'crm_update_object', which could also update email-related data, leaving room for confusion about when to use this specific tool.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'emails_batch_update' or 'emails_create'. The description implies it's for updating existing records but doesn't specify prerequisites, constraints, or scenarios where this tool is preferred over others in the sibling list.

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