connect_email

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

Annotations declare write-ish (readOnlyHint=false) but non-destructive behavior. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the connection persists across subsequent calls, an app password is required rather than the account password, and list_email_providers explains how to obtain one. It doesn't cover auth failures, retry behavior, or what happens when reconnecting an already-connected account.

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?

Front-loaded one-line purpose followed by compact per-argument notes; no filler sentences. The Args-style formatting is slightly verbose for three parameters but every line carries information the agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return value need not be detailed, and the description's 'returns a status message' is a reasonable pointer. For a stateful connection tool the description covers the essentials (persistence, credential type, provider source); only failure modes and reconnect semantics are missing.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it does: provider accepts either a known provider name (enumeration supplied, which the schema lacks) or a raw IMAP hostname with an example, email_address is the full sign-in address, and app_password is explicitly not the regular password. This is meaningful semantics the schema alone cannot provide.

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?

States a specific verb and resource plus the transport ('Connect to an email inbox via IMAP'), which is enough to separate it from siblings like disconnect_email and connection_status. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with those siblings, but the action is 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?

Implied usage: the note that 'the connection persists for subsequent tool calls' tells the agent this is a prerequisite for the read/search tools, and the app_password hint points to list_email_providers. There is no explicit when-not-to-use or a named alternative, so guidance remains inferred rather than stated.

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