emails_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'update' implies a mutation, it doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, what happens on success/failure, if changes are reversible, or any rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this lack of detail is a significant gap in transparency.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words: 'Update an existing email record'. It's front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core action, though this brevity comes at the cost of missing helpful details.

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 complexity (2 parameters with nested objects, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain parameter meanings, behavioral traits, or output expectations. For an update tool with rich input structure, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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%, meaning parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description mentions 'email record' but doesn't explain the two required parameters ('emailId' and 'properties') or the nested properties object with fields like 'hs_email_subject'. It fails to add meaningful semantics beyond what's inferred from the tool name, leaving parameters unclear.

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 an existing email record' clearly states the verb ('update') and resource ('email record'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'emails_batch_update' or 'emails_update' (if there were multiple email update tools), nor does it specify what aspects of an email can be updated beyond the generic term 'record'.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing email ID), compare it to batch operations like 'emails_batch_update', or indicate scenarios where it's appropriate. Without this context, an agent might misuse it or overlook better options.

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