create_mailbox

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 fails to mention critical mutation behaviors: whether the operation is idempotent, if nested mailbox paths are supported, what happens if the name already exists, or what the return value indicates.

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 brief at only four words, containing no redundancy or filler. However, given the lack of annotations and behavioral context, it borders on under-specification rather than optimal conciseness.

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 single-parameter creation tool without an output schema, the description meets minimum viability by identifying the operation type. However, given zero annotation coverage, it should explicitly address folder nesting capabilities and uniqueness constraints to be fully 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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the 'name' parameter is already well-documented as 'Name of the new mailbox'. The description adds no additional semantic context (e.g., naming restrictions, path separators for nesting), but the baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the schema's completeness.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and identifies the resource ('mailbox/folder'), clarifying that this refers to email folders rather than user accounts. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling operations like 'rename_mailbox' or 'delete_mailbox', nor does it specify scope constraints (e.g., parent mailbox context).

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, prerequisites (such as checking for existing mailboxes via 'list_mailboxes'), or error handling scenarios (e.g., duplicate names).

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