mail_updateAutoreplyV1

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

Given no annotations, the description carries full burden and explains key behavioral traits: omitted optional fields are cleared, with specific effects on activation and duration. This is transparent, but does not cover potential side effects like whether the update is instantaneous or requires the autoreply to exist.

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, concise and front-loaded with the action. Every sentence adds value without repetition or unnecessary detail.

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 adequately covers the tool's purpose and key input behavior. Although there is no output schema or mention of return values, for an update tool, the input focus is reasonable. It might benefit from noting the expected response, but it is sufficient given the context.

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 coverage is 100% with each parameter described. The description adds value by explaining the clearing semantics for 'starts_at' and 'ends_at', which goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions. This extra information aids correct parameter usage.

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 replaces an autoreply with given content and schedule. It uses a specific verb ('Replace') and identifies the resource (autoreply). It distinguishes from create/delete by focusing on modification, and adds detail on clearing omitted fields.

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 usage context by explaining the behavior when optional fields are omitted, which guides the agent on how to set immediate or indefinite autoreplies. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like create or delete, but the context is sufficient for most use cases.

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