request_mailing_action

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It clearly warns that destroy physically shreds letters (irreversible), forward incurs cost, and the action is double-gated (env var + confirm). This is excellent behavioral disclosure.

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?

Well-structured: short intro, prominent warning, then bullet-pointed argument explanations. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. Uses formatting effectively (⚠️, bold, line breaks).

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 6 parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description covers all critical aspects: action types, side effects, parameter dependencies, and required confirm. Could mention return values or errors, but not essential for usage.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It explains action_type values (scan, forward, destroy), requirements for forward (forwarding_address_id and forwarding_date), and confirm must be True. Does not detail scanbox_id or mailing_uuid, but these are self-explanatory from context.

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 explicitly states the tool requests a physical action on a mailing (scan/forward/destroy). It distinguishes from siblings like cancel_mailing_action and create_forwarding_address by focusing on the action request endpoint.

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?

Provides clear usage context: irreversible actions, cost for forward, double-gate requirement (env var + confirm). Explicitly notes when confirm must be True and when forwarding fields are required. Does not mention alternatives to using this tool but sets strong expectations.

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