Update Email Rule

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

Annotations indicate non-destructive and idempotent behavior. The description adds the important behavioral note that user confirmation is recommended, which goes beyond annotation hints. It does not contradict any annotations.

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 reasonably concise and well-structured, using a bullet-like list for parameters and front-loading key information with an icon. It avoids unnecessary elaboration.

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 an update tool with 8 parameters and no nested objects, the description covers the essential purpose, allowed fields, and return value. The presence of an output schema (not shown) reduces the need to describe return format further.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds basic semantics for each parameter (e.g., 'New name for the rule (optional)'). However, it lacks details for complex parameters like conditions, actions, and exceptions, which remain opaque.

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 the action (update) and the resource (an existing message rule). It lists the modifiable properties and distinguishes from sibling tools like emailrules_create or emailrules_delete. The verb+resource combination is specific and unambiguous.

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 notes that user confirmation is recommended and that at least one field must be provided. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., emailrules_create for new rules), the context from sibling names makes the distinction clear.

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