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

With no annotations, the description does the essential work by declaring the operation non-mutating ('Nothing changes') and summarizing the return content (affected campaigns, remaining mailbox count). It omits prerequisites such as mailbox ownership or what happens when mailbox_id is unknown/invalid.

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 short sentences, no filler, with the dry-run nature front-loaded before the result summary. Every clause carries information.

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?

For a one-parameter, read-only preview with no output schema, the description covers the safety profile and the shape of the result. The remaining gap is how to source mailbox_id and any error behavior, which is minor but real.

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 0% and the single required parameter mailbox_id is never mentioned in the description, so nothing tells the agent which mailbox identifier to supply or how to obtain it. Only one parameter keeps this from being a 1.

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 states a dry-run of disconnecting a mailbox and is concrete about what it surfaces: affected client_owned campaigns and remaining usable mailboxes. It never says the word 'disconnect' or names the sibling disconnect_client_mailbox, so differentiation comes mostly from the name and title rather than the description text.

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?

'Dry-run' plus 'Nothing changes' implies this should be called before the real disconnect, but no sibling is named and there is no explicit when/when-not guidance. An agent can infer intent but must supply the routing decision itself.

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