gmail_patch_cse_identity

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention that this performs a partial update (only changing specified key pairs), whether it is idempotent, or what happens if a key pair is omitted. No mention of auth requirements or side effects.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the purpose with no wasted words. However, the brevity sacrifices useful detail; slightly more structure (e.g., listing what changes) would be beneficial without significant bloat.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should explain what the response looks like (e.g., returns updated identity or success status) and provide more context about the partial update behavior. Currently incomplete.

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% with clear parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond summarizing the parameters ('associate different key pairs'). It does not explain relationships or constraints between parameters.

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 'Update a CSE identity to associate different key pairs' clearly states the tool's verb (update) and resource (CSE identity), and distinguishes from sibling tools like create/delete. However, it could more explicitly indicate that this modifies only the provided key pair fields.

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 like gmail_create_cse_identity or gmail_delete_cse_identity. The description implies updating, but does not caution against using it for initial creation or deletion.

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