combell_mailboxes_create

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), and the description's 'Create' matches that. It adds one helpful dependency hint about account discovery but does not describe side effects, response behavior, or post-creation steps. Annotations carry much of the burden, so this is acceptable but not rich.

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?

Two short sentences, with the primary action stated first and the prerequisite second. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 create operation with three fully described parameters and no nested objects, the description covers what the agent needs to invoke it correctly. The only contextual requirement—how to obtain account_id—is explicitly provided.

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%, and each parameter already has a clear description. The tool description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it merely repeats the account_id sourcing hint already present in the parameter schema.

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 names a specific action and resource: 'Create a mailbox on a mail zone account.' This clearly distinguishes it from related mailbox tools like deletion, listing, password updates, and mail zone alias/catch-all creation.

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?

It gives a concrete prerequisite: find account_id in the mail zone's available_accounts via combell_mail_zones_get. This tells the agent where the required identifier comes from, though it does not explicitly discuss when to prefer this over sibling mailbox tools.

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