create_folder_for_email

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the default naming rule and custom name option, which adds useful context beyond the schema. However, it does not disclose side effects like behavior if the folder already exists, permission requirements, or error handling, leaving gaps for an agent.

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 concise sentences with zero redundancy. It states the primary action, default behavior, and optional customization in a clear, front-loaded manner.

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 simple two-parameter tool with high schema coverage and no output schema, the description is sufficient to convey its purpose and basic behavior. It could mention edge cases like conflicting folders, but given the low complexity, it is adequately complete.

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 coverage is 100% for both parameters, each with descriptions. The tool description adds no new meaning beyond the schema—it merely restates the default name pattern. Since the schema already explains the parameters, a baseline of 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 the tool creates a folder (dossier) specifically for a mailbox email address, with a default naming convention (mail/<local-part>). This specific verb+resource pairing distinguishes it from the sibling create_folder tool, which is generic. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 implies usage for creating a folder tied to an email address, and the default naming scheme gives context. It does not explicitly state when to use it over create_folder, but the name and description make the distinction clear. No exclusions are mentioned, but given the clear scope, this is adequate.

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