update_email

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool performs mutations but does not mention side effects, permissions, or error conditions. The list of updatable fields provides some transparency.

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 brief and well-organized with bullet points. Every sentence adds value, and the most important information (purpose, actions, usage pattern) is front-loaded.

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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers what can be updated but omits what the tool returns (e.g., success indicator, updated email object). It also lacks context on potential prerequisites for linking to contacts/projects.

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 the schema already describes parameters. The description adds value with the 'Only provide the fields you want to change' directive, indicating partial updates. This goes beyond the schema's individual field descriptions.

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 clearly states 'Update an email in Propstack' and enumerates specific actions (read/unread, archive, categorize, link), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'send_email' and list tools.

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?

Explicit use cases are listed, and the instruction 'Only provide the fields you want to change' guides partial updates. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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