combell_mail_zones_catch_all_create

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

Annotations already declare the operation as non-readonly, non-idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the core routing behavior, but it does not disclose consequences such as whether an existing catch-all gets replaced or how the API responds on success. No contradiction with annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every part contributes to understanding the function and key parameters.

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 two-parameter create operation, the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not clarify behavior when a catch-all already exists, possible validation rules for the email address, or how to verify/remove the created catch-all. The lack of an output schema also leaves return value expectations unspecified.

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 50%; email_address already has a schema description ('Destination for all unmatched e-mail'), and the tool description reinforces it. However, domain_name has no schema description, and the tool description does not clarify important constraints like whether the address must be a local mailbox or whether the domain must be a specific format.

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 states a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('catch-all') and explains the exact behavior: e-mail to non-existent addresses is delivered to a specified address. This clearly distinguishes it from related siblings such as catch_all_delete or aliases_create.

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 intended usage is implied by the clear function: use when you need a catch-all for a domain. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or reference to alternatives, such as the sibling combell_mail_zones_catch_all_delete for removing a catch-all.

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