Reply All to Email

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

Annotations have destructiveHint=false, but the description explicitly warns that the action cannot be undone and sends immediately. This adds crucial behavioral context beyond annotations, with no contradictions.

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 well-structured with an emoji header, warning, and docstring-style sections. It is informative but slightly verbose; could be more concise.

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 mutation tool with output schema and 4 parameters, the description covers all critical aspects: purpose, usage constraints, parameter semantics, return values, and errors. No gaps remain.

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%, but the description provides full parameter explanations in the Args section, including that 'confirm' must be True and 'body' is stripped of whitespace. This compensates fully.

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 'Reply to all recipients of an email', indicating a specific verb and resource. It implies differentiation from the sibling 'email_reply' by specifying 'all' recipients.

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 includes a warning that reply will be sent immediately to all recipients and cannot be undone, guiding use. It also notes user confirmation is required, but does not explicitly state when not to use.

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