gmail_update_imap

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

The description lacks any behavioral disclosure beyond the fact that it updates settings. With no annotations provided, the agent has no information about side effects, required permissions (e.g., IMAP must be enabled), whether the operation is reversible, or what happens if invalid values are provided. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 a single short sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. It conveys the basic purpose without elaboration, front-loading the key action. However, it could be improved by adding brief context about the effect of the operation or constraints.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what the tool returns (presumably the updated settings or a success status), nor does it clarify the impact of parameters like maxFolderSize or expungeBehavior. The schema descriptions help, but the overall description leaves important gaps for an AI agent to use the tool safely and effectively.

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?

The input schema covers all 4 parameters with descriptions, each explaining its role (e.g., 'Enable or disable IMAP', 'Auto-expunge (default true)'). Since schema_description_coverage is 100%, the tool description adds no extra semantic value beyond what the schema already provides, which is the baseline for this dimension.

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 Gmail IMAP settings' clearly states the verb (Update) and resource (Gmail IMAP settings), making the purpose immediately understandable. The tool name reinforces this. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like gmail_get_imap or gmail_update_pop, though the name and description are specific enough to distinguish.

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 (e.g., gmail_get_imap for reading, gmail_update_pop for POP settings). There are no prerequisites, caveats, or context about typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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