mail_createAutoreplyV1

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

The description discloses key behavioral constraints: the uniqueness of autoreplies per mailbox and the activation/expiration behavior of starts_at and ends_at. It does not mention error handling (e.g., what happens if one already exists) or permissions, but with no annotations provided, it covers the most critical aspects.

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?

Two short, well-structured sentences with no redundancy. The key information is front-loaded.

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?

The description lacks details on return value (no output schema) and error cases (e.g., what if a mailbox already has an autoreply). For a creation tool with a constraint, some completeness is missing.

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?

Given 100% schema coverage, the description adds value by explaining the semantic effect of omitting starts_at (immediate activation) and ends_at (indefinite duration), going beyond the schema's description.

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 verb (create) and resource (automatic reply for a mailbox), and adds a uniqueness constraint ('A mailbox can have only one autoreply'), which distinguishes it from siblings like mail_updateAutoreplyV1.

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 clear guidance on when to use this tool (to set up an autoreply) and explains the effect of omitting optional parameters. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with mail_updateAutoreplyV1 or advise checking for an existing autoreply first.

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