Create mail filter

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

Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds value by noting that ox-mcp manages its own sieve script and activates it, giving insight into side effects and lifecycle beyond what annotations provide.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and a concise note. No unnecessary elaboration. Every sentence earns its place.

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 creation tool with 6 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral note (script management). However, it omits what the tool returns (e.g., confirmation, filter ID). Slightly incomplete but overall adequate.

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 67%, and the description does not add further parameter-specific details. While the schema itself documents parameters well (e.g., 'Human-readable rule name', 'Stop processing further rules'), the tool description does not enhance understanding beyond that. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it creates a server-side mail filter (sieve), which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like email_filter_update and email_filter_list by specifying creation. The mention of ox-mcp managing its script adds context without muddying purpose.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., email_filter_update). It does not state prerequisites or conditions under which to create a filter. The note about script management hints at automation but lacks explicit usage directives.

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