update_masked_email

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It identifies the tool as a mutation ('update') and explains parameter effects, but does not reveal potential consequences (e.g., whether state='deleted' is reversible) or required permissions.

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 extremely concise: a single opening sentence stating the purpose followed by a bullet-point-style list of parameters. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded and scannable.

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 5 parameters (4 optional) and an output schema exists, the description adequately covers parameter semantics and purpose. However, it could be more complete by noting that the masked email must already exist, and by explaining the return value (though output schema may handle that).

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 zero parameter descriptions (0% coverage). The tool description fully compensates by explaining each parameter's purpose and acceptable values (e.g., state can be 'enabled/disabled/deleted'), adding crucial meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 updates a masked email and lists the specific fields that can be changed (state, description, domain, URL). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_masked_email and destroy_masked_email by naming the verb 'update' and specifying the resource.

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 for updating existing masked emails by listing the parameters to modify. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it (e.g., for creation use create_masked_email) or alternative tools, though siblings are listed separately.

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