hec_quarantine_emails

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds critical context: it is 'HIGH-IMPACT', affects user access, returns task IDs to track progress, and is reversible via restore. It does not contradict annotations. One minor gap: it doesn't explicitly state that action is async (task IDs imply it).

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?

At 4 sentences, it is concise but could be slightly tighter. The warning emoji and 'HIGH-IMPACT' are front-loaded. Every sentence adds value: impact, what it does, reversibility, tracking, confirmation. The last sentence about confirmation is slightly redundant with the first sentence's implication of caution.

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 is a high-impact mutation with 2 simple params and no output schema, the description adequately covers behavior. It mentions task IDs for tracking but does not explain how to interpret the response or that the operation is asynchronous. With annotations providing safety profile, this is nearly complete.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are described in the schema. The description mentions 'entity ID' which maps to the required 'entityIds' parameter, but adds no extra detail about format or constraints beyond what the schema provides. 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 clearly states the verb 'Quarantine' and the resource 'specific email entities by entity ID'. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'hec_quarantine_events' by specifying 'email entities'. The purpose is immediate and specific.

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 explicitly says 'Confirm with the user before invoking', which is strong usage guidance. It also implies when to use (when quarantining is needed) and indicates reversibility via 'restore', referencing sibling restore tools. This guides the agent on decision-making.

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