create_mail_account

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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description is not required to repeat that. It adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the account is inert until a rule references it, and testing is recommended. This informs the agent of side effects (none immediate) and a recommended verification step. 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 two sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the additional context about mail rules and testing is concise and directly useful. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with 10 parameters and no output schema, the description is quite brief. It explains the tool's role in the mail pipeline but does not describe return values, error conditions, or parameter nuances beyond what the schema offers. Given the complexity, more guidance (e.g., expected response, duplicate handling) would improve completeness, but the existing context is not misleading.

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 60%, so several parameters (name, imap_server, username, owner, is_token, character_set) lack schema-level explanations. The description does not compensate for this gap; it mentions no parameters explicitly. However, the schema does document the key ones (password masking, port defaults, account_type, imap_security), so the description adds little value beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given partial schema coverage.

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 specific verb-resource combination: 'Create an IMAP account for Paperless to fetch mail from.' It distinguishes this from sibling operations like update_mail_account, list_mail_accounts, and test_mail_account by focusing on the creation action and the account's purpose. The mention of related tools further clarifies its role in the mail workflow.

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 description provides clear context: it explains that no mail is fetched until a mail rule is created (create_mail_rule), and advises checking connectivity with test_mail_account first. This implicitly tells the agent when to use this tool (when setting up a new mail source) and gives a prerequisite step. It does not explicitly enumerate alternatives or exclusions, but the guidance is actionable and context-rich.

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