gmail_create_filter

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

With no annotations, the description alone must convey behavioral traits. It does not mention permissions required, what happens if a filter with identical criteria exists, or whether the tool returns the created filter object. This lack of detail limits an agent's understanding of side effects or constraints.

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 very short and to the point, but it could be more informative without adding unnecessary length. It is not verbose, but it lacks critical details that would justify a higher score.

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?

Given the tool has 15 optional parameters and no output schema, the description should explain how parameters relate (e.g., whether criteria are AND/OR), what the tool returns, and any limitations. The current description is too bare to guide proper usage.

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 no additional meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates that the tool creates a filter. The parameter descriptions in the schema are self-explanatory, so no extra value is provided.

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 'Create a Gmail filter (automatic message rule)', which conveys a specific action on a specific resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like gmail_list_filters, gmail_get_filter, and gmail_delete_filter.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as gmail_modify_labels or gmail_batch_modify. It also lacks context about prerequisites, use cases, or conditions for creating filters.

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