update-mailbox-settings

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description reinforces mutation with 'Enable, configure, or disable' and adds behavioral context like requiring specific formats for date/time/timezone. It does not contradict annotations and expands on what 'update' entails.

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 moderately concise, with a clear purpose, tip, example, and notes. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. Some redundancy exists (e.g., repeating 'updates mailbox settings'), but overall it is efficient without being overly verbose.

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?

Given no output schema and complex nested parameters, the description provides enough context for common use (OOO) and formatting rules. It covers usage guidelines and behavioral nuances, making it complete for most scenarios. Missing explicit return value info but acceptable for a mutation tool.

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 has nested objects with many fields described. The description adds significant value by providing a concrete example body for automatic replies, explaining date/time format short/Windows/IANA, and listing status values. This compensates for the schema's complexity and partially covers the 33% of parameters not described in 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 tool enables, configures, or disables mailbox settings, which aligns with the name 'update-mailbox-settings'. It distinguishes from read-only sibling 'get-mailbox-settings' and other update tools by specifying the resource and actions. The mention of multiple settings and examples solidifies 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 a tip about common use (Out-of-Office) and explains formatting for date/time/time zone. It also lists status values. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, though context signals imply it's for updates.

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