skuuy_create_temp_inbox

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the write/non-idempotent nature is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the inbox self-destructs after a TTL with a default of 30 minutes. It does not mention auth requirements, but the ephemerality disclosure is the key trait for this tool.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose first, critical behavior (self-destruct/TTL) second, companion-tool routing third. Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description ideally should state what the agent gets back (e.g., the generated inbox address) — it does not. It also lacks any auth/permission context. Given the tool is simple (2 params) the omission is a gap but not crippling.

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% (prefix documented, ttl_minutes not). The description restates the TTL default of 30 minutes, reinforcing that parameter's meaning, but says nothing about the prefix parameter or formatting of the generated local part. 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Creates a disposable email inbox') and immediately scopes the use case to sign-ups and verifications. It also names the sibling it works with (skuuy_read_inbox), so an agent can place it among the other skuuy tools without opening a schema.

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 a clear usage context (sign-ups, verifications) and explicitly routes the agent to skuuy_read_inbox for polling mail and OTPs. It stops short of stating when NOT to use this tool or what alternative exists for a permanent mailbox, so it is clear context without exclusions.

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