imapsync_export

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does not explain side effects, whether confirmation prevents partial changes, or what happens after export. Additionally, the line 'confirm: Required' conflicts with the schema, which lists confirm as optional with a default of false, creating ambiguity.

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 short and front-loaded with a clear one-sentence purpose. However, the Args section is too thin to be useful, and the misleading 'confirm: Required' line detracts from the value of the content.

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 an action that triggers an export with a confirmation parameter and a free-form payload, this description is incomplete. The output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but the tool still lacks essential context about what the payload should contain and what confirmation does.

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 payload is an open object with additionalProperties true, so the description must explain the parameter structure. It only says 'payload: Panel imapsync export body,' which gives no field-level meaning, and 'confirm: Required' is inconsistent with the schema.

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 verb and resource: 'Export mail from this box to a remote IMAP server.' This distinguishes it from the closely named sibling imapsync_import, though it does not explicitly call out the sibling. A clear, non-tautological purpose is present.

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 action of exporting to a remote IMAP server implies when this tool would be used, especially alongside imapsync_import and imapsync_cancel. However, it provides no explicit guidance on prerequisites, when not to use it, or alternatives.

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