create_mailbox

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It reveals non-idempotency and error surfacing ('slug conflicts/cooldowns/limit errors'). However, it omits authentication requirements and standard success behavior.

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 minimal (two sentences) and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence provides distinct value, with no unnecessary words.

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 lacks a full account of the return value, covering only a special case scenario. It also does not mention prerequisites like permissions or project existence, which is needed for a creation tool.

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 the description adds no new meaning beyond clarifying the email address format. This meets the baseline expectation for well-documented parameters.

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 action ('Create a project-scoped email mailbox') and the specific resource type. It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_mailbox' or 'update_mailbox'.

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 implies usage by stating the tool creates mailboxes, but does not explicitly compare to alternatives. It mentions non-idempotence and errors, which hints at when not to use, but lacks direct when-to-use guidance.

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