reconnect_failed_accounts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'bulk operation' but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this requires admin permissions, if it's idempotent, what happens on partial failures, rate limits, or expected outcomes. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('Reconnect all failed email accounts') and adds clarifying context ('bulk operation') concisely.

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 complexity (a bulk mutation operation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'reconnect' entails, success/failure responses, or side effects. For a tool that likely modifies system state, more detail is needed.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description adds no parameter-specific information, which is appropriate here. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters as no compensation is needed.

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 action ('Reconnect') and target ('all failed email accounts'), specifying it's a bulk operation. It distinguishes from siblings like 'update_email_account' or 'create_email_account' by focusing on reconnection rather than creation/modification. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar tools like 'resume_lead' which might handle related states.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., only when accounts are in a 'failed' state), exclusions, or related tools like 'update_email_account' for individual fixes. The context is implied but not explicit.

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