Update the email

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

The description provides minimal behavioral information beyond the HTTP method and resource path. It does not disclose idempotency, required permissions, error behavior, or response format. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it fails to convey important behavioral traits.

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 short but includes redundant technical details like the HTTP method and path, which are already implied by the tool name. It could be more concise by focusing on the action and behavior rather than restating the endpoint.

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 lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return value, error conditions, or validation rules, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the parameters. The body.email field and path parameters are not explained, leaving the agent to infer their semantics from the schema alone. The description does not compensate for the lack of parameter descriptions.

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 that the tool updates an email resource, specifying the HTTP method and resource path with placeholders for organizationId and emailId. It distinguishes from siblings like create and delete, but does not specify which fields can be updated beyond the email string in the body.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative email update tools (e.g., weeek_update_the_email_2) or prerequisites such as the email existing. The description lacks context on appropriate usage scenarios.

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