Update Inbox Agent

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

Annotations only flag this as a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: omitted fields retain current values, and enabledActions wholesale-replaces the existing set (a partial-overwrite trait not captured by destructiveHint=false), plus the inbox-ID-vs-email distinction. It does not mention auth/permission requirements, keeping it short of 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?

Four tight sentences, each load-bearing, with the core action and the three governed fields front-loaded before constraints and the get-first hint. No filler.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with annotations present and no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral risks (merge vs replace, partial updates, ID type). It omits nothing an agent would likely trip over, though it doesn't touch failure modes.

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 meaning beyond the schema by stating the 'at least one required' constraint (schema only marks inboxId as required) and reinforcing the replace-not-merge semantics of enabledActions, which the schema only partially conveys.

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 (update) and resource (an inbox's AI agent settings), then enumerates the exact three settings it governs. It is clearly distinguishable from the many sibling update tools (update-inbox, update-inbox-thread, update-inbox-draft) by naming the AI agent and its threads.

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 prerequisites and routing: at least one of the three fields must be supplied, and it directs the agent to call get-inbox-agent first to read current settings. It also warns that enabledActions replaces rather than merges, which changes how the tool should be invoked.

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