Set Auto Reply

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

Description says 'treat as destructive' but annotations set destructiveHint=false, creating a direct contradiction. This misleads the agent about the tool's safety profile.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff: first states purpose, second adds critical behavioral warning. Appropriate length for the tool's scope.

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?

Covers the primary action and warns about destructive effects, but lacks parameter details and contradicts annotations. Output schema exists but description doesn't reference it.

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?

With only 29% schema description coverage (2 of 7 parameters described), the description adds no meaning beyond the action. It does not explain how parameters map to enable/update/disable behavior.

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?

Clearly states verb+resource: 'Enable, update, or disable an auto-reply for a mailbox.' This is unique among sibling tools, as no other tool handles auto-reply settings.

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?

Provides context that enabling creates a permanent outbound channel firing on every inbound message and advises to treat as destructive. However, does not explicitly state when to use vs. alternatives like mailbox rules or forwarding.

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