update_mailbox

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of disclosure, but it only states that the operation updates settings and notes the permission scope 'mailbox:write'. It does not explain whether the patch is partial or full replacement, what happens to unspecified settings, or whether the operation is reversible. The auth scope is useful transparency, but other behavioral details are absent.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and target, followed by the permission scope. It is concise with no filler, and the examples are placed after the main clause to preserve clarity. The 'etc.' is slightly indefinite but does not detract significantly.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits important operational details such as whether patch is a merge or replace, which fields are valid inside patch, and whether existing settings are cleared if omitted. It does provide examples and a required scope, but an agent would need more detail to confidently update a mailbox without unintended changes. Given the complexity of a free-form patch object, the description is too thin.

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?

The input schema only describes 'patch' generically as 'Fields to update', but the description enriches this by naming examples ('display name, signature') that belong in the patch object. It does not explain the 'id' parameter, though its purpose is self-evident from context. With 50% schema coverage, the description only partially compensates for the undocumented properties of patch.

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 uses the specific verb 'Update' and the resource 'mailbox', and gives examples of settings ('display name, signature') to define the scope of changes. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_mailbox and delete_mailbox because it targets existing mailbox configuration. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from related tools like get_mailbox, relying on the verb to imply the operation.

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 when to use the tool—when a mailbox exists and needs settings modified—but provides no explicit conditions, exclusions, or references to alternatives. It does not say 'use this instead of create_mailbox' or mention prerequisites like the mailbox needing to exist. This leaves usage context mostly implicit.

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