create_email_rule

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It includes '[mutation]' indicating state change, but omits crucial details: side effects (e.g., rule activated immediately?), permission requirements, validation of conditions/actions, success/failure behavior, or limits on number of rules. The description is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a tag. It front-loads the purpose and immediately explains capabilities with examples. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Despite the tool having 4 parameters and no output schema, the description does not address return values, error states, or post-creation behavior. It is incomplete for a creation tool, leaving the agent uncertain about what happens after successful execution or how to reference the new rule.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for each of the 4 parameters. The description does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it merely gives examples of conditions and actions. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the tool creates a new email rule, with specific verb 'Crear' (create) and resource 'regla de email'. It describes the rule's function: filtering incoming emails by sender, subject, etc., and executing actions like archive, label, or assign agent. This differentiates it from sibling tools like update_email_rule or list_email_rules.

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 implies the tool is used when one needs to create a new email rule, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., when to update instead). It lacks context about prerequisites or exclusions, such as requiring existing email accounts or permission checks.

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