prepare_application_followup

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

The description adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations: it drafts without sending, requires mailbox checking first, prohibits chasing replies, and conditions authorization reuse on scope. This is useful context that annotations alone don't convey.

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?

Four short, purposeful sentences with no filler. Each sentence adds operational or selection-relevant information, and the most important constraints come early.

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 moderate complexity and an output schema, the description covers preconditions, side-effect boundaries, and scope constraints. It doesn't detail what the prepared draft contains or what happens after preparation, but the essential call-time decisions are covered.

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 the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It explains the overall purpose but never explicitly maps app_id and body to their roles.even though the names are fairly self-explanatory.

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?

States a specific action and object: "Prepare one due follow-up with email thread headers." It also draws a sharp boundary with "Draft only, no sending," which distinguishes it from send-type sibling tools like send_application.

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?

Provides clear usage context: check the mailbox first, don't chase replies, only reuse authorization when the follow-up is within scope. It doesn't explicitly name an alternative tool, but the guidance is concrete enough to guide selection.

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