Create Inbox

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

Annotations already disclose that this is a mutating (non-read-only) operation and not destructive. The description adds that the tool returns the inbox details and email address, which is useful, but it does not discuss potential side effects like inbox creation limits or whether tags affect retrieval. The description complements the annotations without contradicting them.

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 concise, with a front-loaded purpose statement followed by a compact parameter reference. No unnecessary information is included, and the structure is easy to parse.

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 tool with two optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers the main purpose and parameter roles. It mentions the return value but omits potential edge cases like duplicate display names or the relationship to list_inboxes, but these are not critical for a basic invocation.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description's Args section gives meaning to both parameters: display_name as a friendly name and tags as comma-separated, with examples. This compensates well for the sparse schema, though it does not elaborate on how tags are used downstream.

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 verb 'Create' and the resource 'new email inbox', distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_inboxes and delete_inbox. The mention of returning inbox details adds specificity about what the tool accomplishes.

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 implies the tool is for creating inboxes but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as list_inboxes or delete_inbox. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, so usage is inferred rather than explicit.

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