Email: shell update

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

Annotations already carry destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description reinforces with 'changes or deletes existing data, so check with the user.' It adds genuinely new behavioral context: the server sanitises the HTML and the {{Content}} placeholder must be preserved.

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?

Front-loaded with the primary action and appropriately sized, but the reset behavior is stated twice ('revert to the platform default' and 'returns to the platform default'), which is mild redundancy rather than wasted length.

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 no-output-schema mutation tool, it covers both operating modes, the placeholder constraint, sanitisation behavior, the destructive warning, and the preview-first workflow. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds usable semantics beyond the schema: the reset flag's effect (returns to platform default) and the invariant that the {{Content}} placeholder must remain. Minor friction: it expresses reset as a CLI-style '--reset' flag while the schema exposes a boolean.

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 verb+resource (save/replace the shell HTML layout around every project email) and covers both modes (save vs. reset to default). The scope 'around every email the project sends' cleanly separates it from siblings like email_templates_update and email_shell_show.

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 clear workflow condition: 'Check a draft with email_preview first' and 'check with the user before running it.' It names one alternative (email_preview) explicitly, though it doesn't distinguish save-shell from email_templates_update or state when reset vs. save is appropriate.

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