create-rule

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the rule automatically acts on real mail on an ongoing basis, includes delete/move actions, and that actions are irreversible. It also advises user confirmation for safety. This fully compensates for missing annotations.

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 3-4 sentences, front-loaded with the 'Use when' directive. Every sentence serves a purpose: usage conditions, behavioral caution, and alternative guidance. No redundancy or filler.

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 no annotations, complex nested schema, and presence of an output schema, the description covers safety, usage guidelines, and key parameter behaviors. It lacks detailed parameter syntax but provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and risks. Could be slightly more thorough on condition/action structures but overall adequate.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It mentions condition components (field/operator/value) and actions (markRead, markFlagged, delete, moveTo) and explains the matchAll flag's purpose. While not detailing every parameter format (e.g., operator enum values), it adds essential context beyond the schema such as the matchAll behavior and mandatory actions.

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 ('creating') and resource ('a new Mail rule'), and details the components (conditions and actions). It distinguishes from sibling tools like enable-rule, disable-rule, and delete-rule, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly provides 'Use when' and 'Do not use when' conditions, naming specific alternative tools (enable-rule, disable-rule, delete-rule) and advising to use list-rules to avoid duplicates. This gives clear guidance on when and when not to use the tool.

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