reply-shared-mailbox-mail

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a write operation. The description's 'Requires confirm=true' adds no new information because the confirm parameter's schema description already states it is a safety gate for a WRITE operation. The description does not disclose additional behavioral context like sending an email, side effects, or the need for user approval beyond the schema.

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 very short and front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence adds redundancy with the schema, but the overall size is appropriately minimal and free of fluff.

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 write operation with no output schema, the description needs to convey side effects and scope. It does not explain that a reply is actually sent, that the user must be asked for approval, or how this differs from reply-all and forward variants. This leaves an agent under-informed when choosing among many similar mail tools.

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 all four parameters are already well documented in the input schema. The description adds no extra meaning for mailbox, messageId, confirm, or comment, which matches the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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 identifies the action ('Reply') and the resource ('shared-mailbox message'), which distinguishes it from send, forward, and reply-all siblings at a basic level. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with reply-all-shared-mailbox-mail or reply-mail, leaving some differentiation to inference from the tool name.

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 a useful operational prerequisite ('Requires confirm=true'), which tells the agent that user approval must be obtained. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over reply-mail or when not to use it, so usage context is mostly implied rather than stated.

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