createInbox

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden but fails to disclose behavioral traits. It does not indicate if creation is idempotent, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what happens on success/failure, leaving critical operational details unspecified for a mutation tool.

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 with a single sentence 'Create a new inbox', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, this brevity comes at the cost of under-specification, but as per scoring rules, it earns full marks for efficiency in structure.

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 tool's complexity as a mutation with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and three parameters, the description is completely inadequate. It lacks details on behavior, parameters, outputs, and context, failing to provide a minimal viable understanding for 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 0%, with three parameters (display_name, domain, username) undocumented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond the tool name, offering no explanation of what these parameters do, their formats, or how they affect inbox creation, failing to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 'Create a new inbox' restates the tool name 'createInbox' with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It specifies the verb 'create' and resource 'inbox' but lacks detail on what an inbox is or how it differs from siblings like 'listInboxes' or 'getInbox', leaving purpose vague beyond the obvious.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as whether an inbox must be created before using tools like 'sendMessage', or when to choose this over other inbox-related tools, offering no context for decision-making.

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