Create or update follow-up reminders for a thread

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

The description explains the interval semantics of daysList in detail, which is crucial behavioral info. However, it omits how updates work (replace/merge), what pattern does, and does not address the behavior of other parameters. Since no annotations exist, the description carries the full burden but only partially fulfills it.

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 plus an example, which is relatively concise. The example adds clarity but may be slightly verbose. Overall, it is front-loaded with the core purpose and one key behavioral 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?

With 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should cover more. It does not explain return values, error cases, prerequisites, or what 'pattern' means. The absence of guidance on thread identification (messageId) and optional parameters leaves the tool incomplete for an agent.

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?

Only 2 of 8 parameters (daysList, pattern) are described in the text. The schema lacks parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It fails to explain messageId, businessDaysOnly, dueWeekday, createGmailDraft, accountAlias, chatScope, leaving significant ambiguity for the agent.

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 creates or updates follow-up reminders for a thread, specifying the main parameters (daysList, pattern) and the action (create or update). It distinguishes between the two modes, which is essential for selection.

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 mentions 'update the existing open follow-up plan' but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like followup_cleanup, followup_due, or followup_send. No explicit when-not or alternatives.

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