exchange_create_mailbox

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only reveals that a mailbox will be created; it does not mention permissions required, potential side effects, idempotency, or whether creating a shared/room mailbox has different requirements. For a mutation tool, this is a meaningful gap.

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 compact, front-loaded line with no filler. It efficiently conveys the action, resource, and type categories, though the shorthand 'user/shared/room' is slightly cryptic. Still, it is appropriately sized for what it attempts to communicate.

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 six-parameter creation tool with no output schema and no annotations, this one-liner is not sufficient for an agent to call it correctly. It lacks parameter semantics, behavioral expectations, prerequisites, and return-value information, leaving too much to inference.

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 only 17%, with solely 'shared' having a description, so the description needed to compensate by explaining parameters like name, alias, database, userPrincipalName, and room. The phrase 'user/shared/room' hints at the room and shared booleans, but it does not clarify the required 'name' or the roles of the other 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 states a specific verb ('Create'), a resource ('mailbox'), and the supported mailbox types ('user/shared/room'), which clearly distinguishes the create operation from sibling list, get, set, and remove tools. It also references the underlying New-Mailbox cmdlet. It is not a full sentence but conveys the essential purpose without tautology.

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 verb 'Create' implies the tool is for provisioning new mailboxes, and the 'user/shared/room' hint indicates the common variants. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over exchange_set_mailbox for modifications or how to handle existing mailboxes. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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