Create autoreply

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

Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds the key constraint that a mailbox can have only one autoreply and clarifies activation/indefinite behavior, but it does not disclose what happens if an autoreply already exists, whether the call fails, or what the response contains.

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 two sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the uniqueness constraint plus the key parameter behaviors are conveyed 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?

The description plus schema gives enough information for a straightforward create operation: required fields, timing semantics, and the one-autoreply constraint. It is slightly incomplete regarding conflict behavior when an autoreply already exists, but that is a minor gap for this simple tool.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does add meaningful activation semantics for starts_at and ends_at, but those are mostly restatements of the schema's parameter descriptions rather than substantial new information.

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 ('Create') and resource ('automatic reply for the given mailbox'), making the tool's purpose obvious. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, but the create semantics are distinct from the update/delete/list siblings in the tool list.

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 useful context such as 'A mailbox can have only one autoreply' and explains how to control activation and end times. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool over mail_updateAutoreplyV1, mail_deleteAutoreplyV1, or mail_listAutorepliesV1; the guidance is implied rather than direct.

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