Connectors: provider writes

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: approval is required, unsupported actions are refused rather than silently applied, and the shape of the result (success + affected resource, or success:false with reason).

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then safety guidance, then the routing hint, and finally the return contract — no filler or repetition beyond the necessary action enumeration.

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 destructive, open-world mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: scope, approval requirement, prerequisite lookup step, failure semantics, and return shape. The per-action payload details are fully delegated to a high-coverage schema.

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% and the enum/description fields already explain action_type support rules, the provider enum, and resource_id omission for create/send. The description mirrors but does not extend that documentation, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ("Change data in a connected provider account") and enumerates the exact write operations (reply/create/update/delete/archive/label/send/move). It also distinguishes itself from its sibling navig_connectors by positioning that tool as the read/discovery step.

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?

Gives explicit usage context (state-changing, dangerous, approval required) and routes the agent to the alternative when the resource id is unknown: "Use navig_connectors to find the resource id first." The condition that selects the sibling is stated, not implied.

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