set_extraction_schema

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects such as overwriting existing schema, triggering re-extraction, or permissions required. The only behavioral hint is that 'enabled' controls immediate extraction, but overall transparency is poor.

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 concise: a one-line summary followed by a list of arguments. Every sentence is essential, with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the purpose and structured efficiently.

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 the tool has 6 parameters and an output schema, the description is somewhat minimal. It explains parameters well but omits behavioral context (overwrite behavior, validation, error conditions) and prerequisites (domain/inbox existence). It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 0%, so the description provides all semantics for the 6 parameters. Each parameter has a brief but clear explanation, e.g., 'schema: JSON string of a valid JSON Schema object.' This adds significant value beyond the schema titles.

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 that the tool sets a structured extraction schema for an inbox. The verb 'set' is specific, and the resource 'structured extraction schema' is unambiguous. It distinguishes from the sibling 'remove_extraction_schema', but does not clarify whether it creates or updates, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'remove_extraction_schema' or other configuration tools. No prerequisites, context, or exclusions are mentioned. The description lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information.

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