update_email

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the mutation behavior (triage actions) and explains that moving to 'trash' removes from inbox. It does not discuss side effects beyond what is implied, but it is sufficiently transparent for a non-destructive update 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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and uses active voice. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 7 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, the description covers all actions and provides necessary context for parameter values. It could mention that no return value is expected, but that is not critical.

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 100% with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds value by explaining the partial update pattern ('Only include the fields you want to change') and providing cross-reference hints (get emailId from find_emails, use trash to remove from inbox).

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 begins with 'Triage an email' and enumerates specific actions (mark read/unread, star/unstar, flag important, move to folder, link/unlink). It clearly identifies the verb 'update' and resource 'email', distinguishing it from siblings like get_email (read-only) and send_email (send).

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 advises to only include fields to change and to get emailId from find_emails. While it does not explicitly list when not to use or compare against siblings, it provides clear guidance for correct usage.

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