batch_email_action

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the action is reversible and uses a single IMAP call, and mentions the dryRun option for previewing. It does not cover error handling or performance, but overall provides adequate transparency.

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 highly concise with three sentences. The first sentence states purpose, the second provides usage, and the third gives sibling differentiation. All information is front-loaded and no wasted words.

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's 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose, usage context, sibling differentiation, and the dryRun feature. It lacks information on return values or detailed error handling, but the parameters document those. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to decide and invoke 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 80%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds value by grouping parameters into context (e.g., actions list, dryRun for preview) and explaining the use case. It does not repeat schema but enhances understanding.

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: applying a reversible mailbox action to multiple emails in a single IMAP call. It lists the specific actions and distinguishes from the sibling tool apply_thread_action by noting the preference when acting by threadId.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool (when you have a set of emailIds) and provides examples. It also advises against using it for thread-based actions, directing to the sibling tool apply_thread_action. This provides clear guidance on alternatives.

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