batch_modify_emails

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates that labels are modified in batches, without mentioning side effects, partial failure behavior, idempotency, permission requirements, or what happens when both add and remove label IDs are supplied. The batched behavior is useful but the description is too thin for a mutation tool.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the core action and scope. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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?

For a batch mutation tool with four parameters and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain how batch_size affects execution, whether add and remove operations are applied together, or how this compares to modify_email and batch_trash_emails. The schema covers parameters, but the behavioral and usage context 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond 'labels', so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Modify'), the target ('labels for multiple emails'), and the distinctive scope ('in batches'). This distinguishes it from the sibling tool modify_email, which presumably handles a single email, so an agent can select it based on the description alone.

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 phrase 'multiple emails in batches' implies this is the right choice when operating on many emails at once. However, it does not explicitly name modify_email as the single-message alternative, nor does it provide any exclusion conditions or guidance about when not to use the tool.

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