update_mailbox

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the prototype lock constraint and the error that occurs when attempting 'none' on a prototype. This provides key behavioral transparency beyond what the schema reveals.

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 extremely concise at two sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides critical behavioral detail. Every sentence earns its place with zero fluff.

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 (3 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential behavior: what can be updated, allowed values, and constraints. It doesn't mention success response format or asynchronicity, but those are minor for a straightforward update 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds the note about the error when violating the prototype lock, which is informative. However, the schema already captures the constraint for footer_policy. No additional meaning is added for the mailbox or project_id 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 tool updates per-mailbox settings (verb+resource). It specifies the supported footer_policy values, adding specificity. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tool set_mailbox_defaults, which also deals with mailbox settings.

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?

Usage is implied (when you need to change mailbox settings), but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. There is no mention of alternatives like set_mailbox_defaults, leaving the agent to infer appropriate use.

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