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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds useful context that this is a manager action, that the mailbox works over IMAP/SMTP inside and outside Corply, and that only the address's own person can read/send. Much of the remainder is generic boilerplate (canonicality, idempotency, confirmation-boundary templates) that describes policy classes rather than this specific mutation's effects.

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 actionable content (assign an inbox, confirm first) is correctly front-loaded, but the definition then pads with long reusable policy sentences on canonicality, idempotency and confirmation boundaries that are not specific to this tool and dilute the signal.

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 two-required-parameter mutation with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the definition covers prerequisites and the founder-confirmation gate but omits what the call actually returns/changes and how to obtain a valid memberUserId. It is adequate but leaves real gaps for correct invocation.

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 low (33%): localPart is documented in the schema itself ('The part before @, such as jane.') and memberUserId carries no description at all. The description repeats the jane@acme.com example but never explains how to resolve memberUserId (e.g., via a roster/lookup call) or what _corply_context is for, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource ('Give a company member an inbox') and marks the actor class ('a manager action'), so the agent knows this assigns an address rather than listing (list_company_inboxes) or enabling the domain (enable_company_inboxes). It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it is not, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

It gives a prerequisite (authenticated active company access) and a procedural precondition ('Confirm the member and the address with the founder first'), which implies when to use it. However it never names the alternative tools (enable_company_inboxes, update_email_sender, connect_email_domain) or states when NOT to assign an inbox, so routing rests on inference.

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