gmail_set_vacation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that enabling requires confirmation and that a settings scope is needed, which are important behavioral traits. However, it does not mention other behaviors such as idempotency, interaction with existing settings, or what happens on disable.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose ('Configure the vacation auto-reply settings') followed by crucial prerequisites. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant wording.

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?

For a tool with 10 parameters and no output schema, the description is brief but the schema covers parameter details. It provides key requirements (confirmation, scope) but lacks broader context such as the effect of disabling, whether partial updates are allowed, or how the settings integrate with Gmail. The absence of an output schema is not an issue, but the description could be more complete.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter context beyond mentioning confirmation, which aligns with the confirm parameter, but it does not explain any parameters in detail. The schema already provides thorough documentation.

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 'Configure the vacation auto-reply settings' and 'Can enable or disable the vacation responder', which specifies the verb and resource. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool gmail_get_vacation, which is for reading the current settings.

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 implies usage as the setter counterpart to gmail_get_vacation but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use. It does provide some usage context by stating that enabling requires confirmation and requires a settings scope, but lacks clear guidance on when to use this tool versus other Gmail tools.

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