set_email_gate

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so richly. It explains the strict-equal matching, one-time magic link verification, the null value to clear the gate, mutual exclusivity with set_password, and the exact 402 error code for free keys. This gives the agent a complete picture of side effects and error behavior.

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?

Three tight sentences, each adding unique value: the core purpose and match semantics, the verification and exclusivity behavior, and the clearing mechanism plus error condition. The most important behavioral constraints are front-loaded and no sentence is wasted.

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?

For a two-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, how the domain gate behaves, how to clear it, the interaction with set_password, and the free-tier error. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing, and even error handling is specified.

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 must add meaning. It thoroughly explains the 'domain' parameter: strict-equal matching and null-to-clear. It does not explain 'id_or_slug', but that name is self-descriptive and consistent with sibling tools. The core semantic parameter receives excellent treatment, leaving only a minor gap for id_or_slug.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Restrict viewer access to a specific email domain'. It immediately distinguishes itself from siblings by stating the strict-equal match condition and the mutual exclusivity with set_password. An agent can clearly understand what this tool does and how it differs from related 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?

The description gives clear context: it is for restricting access by email domain and is mutually exclusive with set_password. It also discloses the paid-feature requirement and the 402 error on free keys. However, it does not explicitly state 'use set_password for password-based gating' or list conditions for when not to use it beyond the mutual exclusivity note. Still, the guidance is strong.

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