update_email_autoresponder

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It briefly mentions the modes (draft/automatic) but does not explain side effects (e.g., overriding existing settings, authorization requirements, rate limits). The [mutation] tag is present but minimal.

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 short, consisting of two sentences and a [mutation] tag. No redundant information. It front-loads the purpose and action. However, it could benefit from a slightly more structured breakdown of features.

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 the tool's complexity (7 parameters, mutation) and lack of output schema, the description is somewhat lacking. It covers the core functionality but omits details about scheduling limits and thread limits (though the schema covers them). No mention of return values or confirmation. Adequate but not thorough.

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?

The input schema already describes all 7 parameters with 100% coverage, including the mode and schedule fields. The description adds marginal value by explaining that the tool can generate drafts or send automatic replies, which maps to the mode parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states the verb 'Configurar' (configure) and the resource 'auto-responder de email', and explains the two modes (draft or automatic). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like generate_email_draft and update_email_account by focusing on the autoresponder configuration.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., generate_email_draft for one-off drafts, or update_email_account for other account settings). It does not mention prerequisites or exclusion criteria.

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