manage-focused-inbox

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

The description contradicts the annotations. It explicitly includes action=delete which removes an override, yet annotations declare destructiveHint=false. This is a serious inconsistency that could mislead an agent about the tool's safety profile. Despite otherwise helpful behavioral details (e.g., list output, set creates or updates), the contradiction forces a low score.

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 dense paragraph that front-loads the purpose, then cleanly explains each action and its parameters. The critical caveat is included without unnecessary fluff. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description covers the list return format and the account prerequisite. It misses explicit return values for set/delete, but overall it provides a clear behavioral model for the tool. This is nearly complete for a management tool with five parameters.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the list return format (id/sender/classifyAs), clarifies that set creates or updates, and notes the effect on future mail routing. These additions help the agent understand parameter usage in context.

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 manages Focused Inbox sender overrides, explaining the exact mechanism (forcing messages into Focused or Other regardless of the ML classifier). It also enumerates specific actions (list/set/delete), distinguishing it from sibling tools like manage-rules or manage-category.

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 strong usage context, including when each action should be used and a critical caveat that it only works on accounts with Focused Inbox enabled. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the domain is clearly scoped enough to infer usage.

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