Send private feed email

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the confirmation requirement and the podcasts:write OAuth scope, both of which the agent needs before attempting the call. It stops short of describing what the email delivery actually does or whether it can be repeated.

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 short sentences with the action, the state change, and the auth requirement each stated once. The opening sentence largely restates the title, but there is no padding or repetition beyond that.

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 destructive, open-world mutation with no output schema, the description covers the safety essentials (state change, confirm, scope). It omits what distinguishes it from its near-duplicate sibling and what the resulting email delivery entails, which are the remaining gaps an agent would need filled.

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 100%, so all five parameters are already documented in the schema, including the confirm flag the description repeats. The description adds no syntax, format, or default information beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb+resource ('Send private feed email'), which is clearly a mutation on a podcast subscription. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from the near-identically named sibling podcasts_send_private_feed_email_by_email, leaving the agent to guess which one applies.

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?

It gives one concrete usage constraint — confirm=true must be set for the user-requested action — and notes the OAuth scope requirement, which is genuine guidance. But it never says when to choose this tool over podcasts_send_private_feed_email_by_email or podcasts_get_private_feed, so the routing decision is left implicit.

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