kopern_connect_email

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

The description discloses behavioral traits beyond annotations: it requires OAuth in browser, indicating user interaction. With readOnlyHint=false, the mutation is implied. It does not contradict annotations. Additional details like persistence or connection state are omitted, but the key traits are covered.

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 sentences, no wasted words. Front-loads the purpose, then adds requirements and consequences. Every sentence is necessary and efficient.

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 no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, prerequisites, and effect (enables email tools). It is complete for its simplicity, though it could mention success feedback or connection management. Still, it covers the essential context.

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 100% with parameter names and descriptions ('The agent ID or name' and 'Email provider' with enum). The description adds context about enabling email tools and OAuth but does not enrich parameter semantics beyond schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states 'Connect an agent to Gmail or Outlook for email tools (read_emails, send_email, reply_email)', using a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes from sibling connect tools like kopern_connect_calendar and kopern_connect_slack by specifying the target service and resulting capabilities.

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?

The description mentions 'Requires OAuth in browser' as a prerequisite and clarifies that it enables the service_email tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other connect tools) or provide exclusion criteria. The context is clear but lacks explicit guidance.

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