cron_set_email

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the disable-via-empty-string semantics, which is genuine behavioral context, but omits auth requirements or what changes to existing config occur.

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?

Short and front-loaded, with the core action and the disable behavior stated first. The Args block restates the parameter but stays efficient; no wasted sentences.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. For a single-parameter setter, purpose, parameter meaning, and the special empty-string case are all covered, leaving only minor gaps like permissions.

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% and the schema only names the field 'Email', so the description must carry the load. It does: it defines the parameter as an email address and explains that an empty string disables notifications, adding real meaning beyond the schema.

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 and resource: setting the report email for cron jobs, with the read counterpart cron_get_email nearby. It is clear what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself against siblings like cron_get_email or cron_edit.

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?

Usage is implied through the empty-string behavior, which tells the agent one valid interaction pattern, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to alternatives. Adequate but leaves context to inference.

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