reply-all-mail

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only operation, and the description adds the confirm=true safety gate plus the signed-in user context. However, it does not mention the external side effect of sending an email or the irreversibility of that action, leaving some behavioral disclosure to the confirm parameter description rather than the tool description itself.

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 short sentences with no filler. The action, actor, and confirming requirement are all front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 low-complexity write tool with three fully documented parameters, the description plus schema adequately cover the action, identity, safety gate, and required inputs. No output schema exists, so a return-value explanation is not strictly necessary; the only slight gap is that explicit user-approval behavior is documented in the schema rather than the description.

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 input schema covers all three parameters at 100%, including the comment body and confirm safety gate. The description does not add extra meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Reply-all to a message as the signed-in user.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like reply-mail (single reply) and reply-all-shared-mailbox-mail (shared mailbox) by specifying the signed-in user context and reply-all scope.

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?

Clear context is provided: the tool operates on the signed-in user's mailbox and requires confirm=true. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the identity and reply-all wording strongly imply the selection among the mail-reply sibling tools.

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