Create Email Account

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive), so the description's job is to add context. It does add useful notes about server-side password-strength enforcement and default quota/limit application, but omits prerequisites (domain must exist), behavior when the mailbox already exists, and irreversibility of creation.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences with the core action first, then parameter clarification. It is efficiently sized, though the parameter recap partially duplicates the already-complete schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the parameter space is covered. However, for a creation tool with five parameters and many sibling tools, the absence of prerequisites and duplicate-name behavior leaves a meaningful gap.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates what the schema already documents (username as local part, 8-72 char password, quota in MB, daily send limit) rather than adding new meaning such as quota interaction with the account's disk quota or username collision behavior.

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?

"Creates a mailbox under a domain" gives a specific verb and resource, and the mailbox framing separates it from sibling tools like create_domain, create_forwarder, and create_domain_pointer. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling handles adjacent cases (e.g. update_email_account), so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance: nothing says the domain must already exist and be verified, nor how this differs from update_email_account for an existing mailbox. Usage is only inferable from the tool name and 'Creates a mailbox under a domain.'

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