Update autoreply

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

The description discloses a key behavioral trait beyond annotations: omitted optional fields are cleared, meaning the replacement is not additive but wholesale. It also clarifies activation behavior for starts_at and indefinite duration for ends_at. Annotations already signal read-only=false and destructive-hint=true, and the description coherently builds on those without contradiction.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core replacement behavior is front-loaded, and the omission-clear rule is stated immediately after. Every sentence contributes meaningful guidance.

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?

The description, combined with complete schema parameter documentation and annotations, gives an agent enough to call the tool correctly: what it does, which fields are replaceable, and what omission means. The lack of an output schema is not a major gap for a replacement operation, though explicit mention of the existing-autoreply requirement would make it slightly more 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 description coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a baseline explanation. The description adds extra value by explaining the replace-and-clear semantics that apply to all omitted optional fields, and by restating the practical effect of omitting starts_at and ends_at. This goes beyond the individual parameter descriptions.

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 opens with 'Replace the autoreply with the given content and schedule', which names a specific verb, resource, and scope. It clearly distinguishes this update operation from sibling tools like mail_createAutoreplyV1, mail_deleteAutoreplyV1, and mail_listAutorepliesV1.

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 explains the semantics of omitting starts_at and ends_at, which helps an agent know how to configure activation and duration. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over creating or deleting an autoreply, or mention any prerequisites such as an existing autoreply ID. The usage context is implied rather than stated.

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