set_extraction_schema

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

There are no annotations, so the description must disclose behavior. It does not mention whether this overwrites an existing schema, validates the JSON schema input, or has side effects on extraction. The `enabled` parameter indicates immediate activation but without further context.

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 concise and well-organized as an Args list. Each line is informative, though the format is a bit terse and lacks a narrative lead-in. No excessive verbiage.

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 no annotations, six parameters, and a configuration setter with potential overwrite/validation behavior, the description is incomplete. It does not explain preconditions (e.g., inbox must exist), failure modes, or whether this is an upsert versus create-only operation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden for parameter meaning. It provides brief but useful definitions for all six parameters, including the crucial 'JSON string of a valid JSON Schema object' for `schema` and defaults for `enabled` and `description`.

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 states 'Set structured extraction schema for an inbox,' using a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like remove_extraction_schema and other unrelated tools.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are there prerequisites or exclusions mentioned. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name and siblings.

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