change_email_quota

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It only states the action without mentioning permissions, side effects, reversibility, or consequences of setting an unlimited quota. For a mutation tool, this is a significant transparency 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 a single, clear, and concise sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose, though it could be slightly richer with additional context without becoming 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?

For a simple tool with two well-documented parameters, the description is minimally adequate. However, the lack of annotations and output schema means the description should provide more context (e.g., whether the email account must exist, what happens with existing emails, or how quota limits are enforced). It does not.

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 100% coverage, with both parameters (email and quota) adequately described. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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 action ('Change') and the resource ('mailbox quota for an email account'). It is unambiguous and distinguishes from related tools like change_email_password by focusing on quota, but it does not explicitly differentiate among siblings.

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 such as change_email_password or change_ftp_quota. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context about typical usage scenarios.

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