gmail_create_filter

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses two key behavioral aspects: it 'Requires settings scope and confirmation,' covering authentication and a safety gate. However, it does not detail side effects, idempotency, or post-creation behavior (e.g., immediate activation, return value), leaving some gaps in behavioral disclosure.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence earns its place. It avoids redundancy and effectively summarizes the tool's purpose and key requirements without unnecessary detail.

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?

The tool has moderate complexity (nested objects, 4 required params) with no output schema or annotations. The description covers the essential operational context: what the tool does, the roles of criteria and actions, and the need for settings scope and confirmation. Given full schema coverage and clear sibling differentiation, this is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining that 'Criteria define which messages match; actions define what happens to them,' providing conceptual grouping for the nested objects. It also highlights the 'confirm' parameter as a safety gate. Yet it doesn't elaborate on each field beyond what the schema already provides, so it stays at baseline.

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 the tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a Gmail filter to automatically process incoming messages.' It distinguishes this from sibling tools like gmail_list_filters and gmail_delete_filter by focusing on creation and explaining that criteria and actions define the filter's behavior.

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 gives clear context on when to use the tool (to automatically process incoming messages) and explains the roles of criteria and actions. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as pointing to gmail_list_filters for existing filters or gmail_delete_filter for removal. Still, the context is sufficient for correct selection among siblings.

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