update_mail_rule

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses patch semantics (unspecified fields are left untouched), which an agent cannot infer from the schema alone, but it says nothing about permissions, reversibility, side effects on existing rules, or error behavior for a 25-parameter mutation.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the operation and its partial-update nature come first. It is efficiently written, though arguably under-specified for a tool of this complexity.

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?

A 25-parameter mutation tool with 24% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema needs substantially more description than two sentences. Nothing tells the agent about the required id, the meaning of the many filter/assignment fields, or what a successful patch returns.

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 description coverage is only 24% across 25 parameters, so the schema leaves most fields undocumented. The description compensates with nothing beyond the blanket "only supplied fields are changed" statement, providing no syntax, format, or meaning for fields like account, action_parameter, or filter_from.

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 (patch) and resource (Paperless mail rule) and clarifies it operates on an existing rule, which implicitly distinguishes it from create_mail_rule and get_mail_rule. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

"Only supplied fields are changed" implies the partial-update use case and tells the agent it need not send a full rule object, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of required authentication or the required id field.

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