setup_email_account

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 mentions automatic provider detection and server configuration, but lacks critical details: whether this creates a new account or configures an existing one, what permissions are required, if it's a read-only or destructive operation, potential rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. For a tool with no annotations and potential account setup implications, 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 extremely concise and front-loaded: a single sentence in parentheses adds useful context about automatic detection. There's no wasted verbiage or redundancy, making it efficient for an agent to parse while conveying the core functionality.

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 the complexity (account setup with 3 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like mutability, error handling, or return values, which are crucial for a tool that likely involves authentication and configuration. The description alone is insufficient for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

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 all parameters well-documented in the input schema (email, password, provider). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain parameter interactions (e.g., how provider auto-detection works if omitted) or usage nuances. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.

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's purpose: '设置邮箱账号（自动识别邮箱类型并配置服务器）' translates to 'Set up email account (automatically identify email type and configure server).' It specifies the verb 'set up' and resource 'email account' with the additional functionality of automatic provider detection and server configuration. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'configure_email_server' or 'test_email_connection,' which prevents a perfect score.

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 versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'configure_email_server' (which might be for manual configuration) or 'test_email_connection' (which might be for verification). There's no indication of prerequisites, such as needing an existing account or specific permissions, leaving the agent with no context for tool selection.

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