update_autoresponder

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether existing settings are overwritten, permission requirements, or side effects. It is equivalent to a one-line summary and adds no transparency beyond the tool name.

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 short sentence, which is concise in word count but under-specifies the tool's behavior. It lacks essential context, so it is not appropriately sized for the complexity of a mutation tool with three parameters.

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 information about return values, error conditions, or authentication, and with no annotations, the agent has little to go on. Given the tool mutates settings and has an api_token parameter, the description is severely incomplete.

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?

The description does not explain any of the three parameters (enabled, message, api_token) and schema description coverage is 0%. It does not compensate for the schema's bare structure, leaving the agent without semantic guidance on how to fill in values.

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 updates the team's autoresponder settings, using a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('autoresponder settings'). It distinguishes from the sibling 'get_autoresponder' tool by implying a write operation versus a read operation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like get_autoresponder, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It simply states the action without context.

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