Apply Filters

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

Annotations declare the destructive/open-world profile, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: which rules are skipped and that they are reported under `skipped` with reasons, the refusal behavior for forwarding/replying/add-on rules, and the two-tier "Always block" vs "Ask me each time" flow with a pending_user_confirmation status. This is exactly the operational detail an agent needs before triggering a destructive action.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then layered with constraints in a logical order (skip rules, refusal rules, confirmation path). Some sentences are dense with quoted UI labels, but no sentence is filler.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description discloses the meaningful return signals (`skipped` list with reasons, pending_user_confirmation status) and the escalation path. For a destructive, non-idempotent, open-world operation, this covers everything needed to invoke it safely.

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 accountId and folderPath are already documented in the schema and the description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what is there. Baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the parameter burden.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: "Run filters now on the existing messages of a folder." This clearly distinguishes it from the CRUD siblings (createFilter, updateFilter, deleteFilter, listFilters, reorderFilters), which manipulate rule definitions rather than executing them against messages.

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?

Explains the key precondition for invocation (only enabled rules marked "Manually Run" execute) and points to listFilters as the follow-up path when confirmation is pending. It does not explicitly state exclusions like "use updateFilter to change rules first," but the trigger conditions are clear enough to act on.

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