email_pop_modify

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

With no annotations, the description carries the safety burden. It does disclose the need for confirmation ('confirm: Required') and the no-op sentinels (empty password and -1 quota leave values unchanged), but it does not describe side effects such as invalidating existing mail sessions or authorization requirements beyond the terse 'impersonate: Owning user.'

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 one-line purpose is front-loaded, and the argument list is compact with each parameter earning its place. There is no filler or redundant restatement of schema titles.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with an output schema, the description provides enough to invoke it: all parameters are semantically explained and confirmation is flagged. It falls short only in not giving usage context or behavioral consequences, which are already penalized in other dimensions.

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 0%, and the description compensates by explaining every parameter, including crucial sentinel values for password ('empty = leave unchanged') and quota_mb ('-1 = leave unchanged, 0 = unlimited'). It also flags confirm as required, adding meaning absent from the schema's bare defaults.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Change mailbox password and/or quota.' This clearly identifies the operation and distinguishes it from sibling tools like email_pop_create and email_pop_delete, though it does not explicitly name them.

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?

No when-to-use guidance or alternatives are provided. The agent must infer that this tool is for modifying an existing POP mailbox, and no exclusions are given relative to similar tools such as email_pop_create or users_change_password.

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