update_email_retention

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

Description mentions automatic deletion of older emails, which is a key behavioral trait beyond a simple update. However, it does not disclose whether changes are immediate, reversible, or require specific permissions. With no annotations, more detail would improve transparency.

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?

Description is short and front-loaded with the purpose. Uses a clear title-like format and a mutation tag. No unnecessary words, though the structure could be more formal.

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?

Describes the action and consequence (deletion) but lacks details on immediate effect, error handling, or return values. Without output schema, some completeness is missing. Adequate for a simple mutation tool but not fully comprehensive.

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 provides descriptions for both parameters ('retention_days' with enum, 'id' as account ID). The tool description adds context about the effect of changing retention (automatic deletion), which goes beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, score is above baseline.

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?

Description clearly states the tool updates email retention period and automatically deletes older emails. The verb 'Cambia' and reference to retention period make the purpose unmistakable, distinguishing it from read-only tools like 'get_email_retention'.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the sibling list includes 'get_email_retention', the description itself does not direct the agent to use this tool only for modifications or exclude read scenarios.

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