enable_spam_box

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

No annotations are provided, so the description is the sole source of behavioral information. It explains the functional effect (spam delivered to separate folder) but does not disclose potential side effects, reversibility, or whether existing spam is redistributed. This is adequate for a simple toggle but lacks depth.

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 a single 10-word sentence that front-loads the action and parenthetically clarifies the behavior. Every word adds value.

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 simplicity, no output schema, and empty input schema, the description is largely sufficient. However, it could briefly note that this is a mail-routing toggle or that it can be reversed via disable_spam_box for fuller context.

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?

The tool accepts zero parameters, so the schema already covers everything. Baseline for no parameters is 4; no additional parameter semantics are needed.

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 tool enables the spam box and explains the effect (auto-deliver spam to a separate folder). This distinguishes it from sibling disable_spam_box and other email filtering tools like enable_spam_assassin.

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 makes the use case obvious: when the user wants spam automatically routed to a dedicated folder. It doesn't mention explicit alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear given the sibling tools.

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