imap_add_account

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Add a new IMAP account configuration' and reveals nothing about side effects: whether account creation attempts server connectivity, what happens on duplicate names, whether existing credentials are overwritten, or what the operation returns. For a mutating tool storing credentials, this is a significant 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 efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized given the schema carries the parameter detail. It loses one point because it could have used the spare space to at least name the sibling for updates or note the connectivity-testing behavior.

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?

This is a 12-parameter mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, yet the description supplies only five words of context. The account-creation workflow, duplicate-name handling, return payload, and whether the server is contacted during creation are all left unspecified. The schema documents parameters, but the operational context an agent needs to correctly invoke and verify this tool is missing.

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 100%, with every one of the 12 parameters documented including defaults (tls=true, port=993, smtpPort=587) and the smtpHost rewrite rule. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, but since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Add') and resource ('a new IMAP account configuration'), and the word 'new' implicitly distinguishes it from updating existing accounts. However, it doesn't name the sibling imap_update_account as the alternative for existing accounts, so differentiation relies on inference rather than explicit contrast.

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 offers no when-to-use guidance whatsoever. It doesn't state that this tool creates new accounts while imap_update_account modifies existing ones, nor does it mention any prerequisites (e.g., needing imap_connect or imap_test_account first). An agent must infer usage purely from the tool name.

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