Enable or disable mail hosting

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds genuine consequence context: 'Disabling stops MXroute from handling mail for the domain.' 'Safe to repeat with the same value' largely restates idempotentHint, but the effect disclosure and the confirm-first directive add real value.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then consequence, then safety guidance. No filler; every sentence contributes.

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 destructive mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, its consequence, idempotency, and the confirmation requirement. It could note return/effect on other domain settings, but it is sufficient to call correctly.

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 both parameters (domain pattern example, enabled boolean meaning) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, making 3 the correct baseline.

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?

States a specific verb pair (enables/disables) and resource (mail hosting for a domain), so the agent immediately knows the capability. It does not name a sibling to contrast with, but the capability is distinct from the domain/account/spam tools around it.

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?

Provides a clear operational directive ('Destructive: confirm with the user before calling') but gives no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternatives guidance or prerequisites. Usage is implied by the purpose rather than stated.

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