Connect a Gmail account

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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds genuinely new behavior: the browser sign-in is opened externally and the call returns immediately with a link, the account only becomes usable after user approval, and a mismatched Google account results in nothing being saved. It omits error/timeout behavior and link validity, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Front-loads what the tool does, then the async browser flow, then the failure condition, then the verification step, ending with the IMAP exclusion. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition of the schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly discloses the return shape (returns immediately with the sign-in link) and the post-condition (account available only after browser approval). For an open-world OAuth flow with four well-documented params, nothing an agent needs before calling is missing.

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 baseline is 3; the description goes slightly beyond by explaining the consequence of the email parameter (sign-ins from any other account are rejected) and by highlighting calendar=true as an opt-in. It does not add anything on mode's enum values, which the schema already covers.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (connect/re-connect a Gmail account) and immediately scopes it against the alternative path (IMAP via the CLI). An agent can distinguish it from list_accounts, set_default_account and the read-only mail tools without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly covers the re-connect case, states when to use the CLI add-imap path instead, and prescribes the follow-up call (list_accounts) to confirm success. It stops short of stating when this tool should not be called at all, but the context is otherwise unambiguous.

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