create_mailbox

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful behavioral nuance by stating that bare names default to the Folders/ namespace and that explicit paths control placement. However, it does not clarify whether Labels/ paths create labels, what happens on duplicates, or any permission/error behavior, and the phrase "Create a folder" mildly conflicts with the Labels path.

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 efficient sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the second sentence delivers the key namespace placement rule compactly.

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?

The tool is simple and has an output schema, so return values need not be described. The description covers the main name semantics and default namespace, but it leaves the account parameter undocumented and fails to clarify the Folders/Labels relationship, which matters given the create_label sibling.

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 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It partially does so for name by explaining bare names versus explicit Folders/... or Labels/... paths, but it completely omits the account parameter, leaving the agent with only the schema default to guess its meaning.

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 clear action and resource: "Create a folder." It adds meaningful namespace detail (Folders/ vs Labels/) that helps distinguish it from label-related siblings, but it does not fully resolve how Labels/... paths relate to create_label, leaving slight ambiguity.

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 gives useful guidance on how to format the name parameter, explaining the default Folders/ namespace and explicit path override. However, it never says when to prefer this tool over create_label or when not to use it, which is a significant gap given the Labels/... path support and sibling tool create_label.

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