Update Spam Settings

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

The annotations only cover safety and idempotency, so the description carries most of the weight: it explains the practical consequence of the value (more or less mail deleted), the account-wide serialization of writes, and the recovery procedure after a 503. It stops short of stating auth or permission requirements, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 dense sentences with the core action and its value semantics first, followed by the concurrency and retry caveat. There is no filler, and every clause adds information.

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?

With only two fully documented parameters, annotations covering the safety profile, and an output schema handling return values, the description covers everything an agent needs: what the write does, how the value behaves, and how to recover from a failed save. No material gap remains for a tool of this complexity.

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 baseline is 3, and the description adds real meaning beyond the schema by explaining what direction the high_score value moves deletion aggressiveness. The domain parameter gets no extra explanation in the description, so it does not reach a 5.

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 and resource: it sets the spam auto-deletion threshold for a domain. The direction of the setting ('Lower values delete more aggressively; higher values keep more mail') lets an agent distinguish it from the read-only sibling get_spam_settings without opening either schema.

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?

It implies usage through the setting semantics and the retry advice, which implicitly points to re-reading via get_spam_settings, but it never explicitly names that alternative or states when not to use this tool. There is no mention of prerequisites such as domain ownership or package requirements.

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