delimit_inbox_daemon

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

With no annotations, the description provides behavioral details: polling interval, classification, forwarding, draft approval, and auto-posting being disabled. However, it omits safety/permissions implications of starting/stopping the daemon.

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 concise paragraphs: first states purpose, second details behavior. No redundant information; every sentence adds value.

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?

Given a single parameter and high schema coverage, the description explains the daemon's workflow sufficiently. Output schema exists but description doesn't need to detail it for this control tool.

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 coverage is 100% with adequate parameter description. The tool description adds context about the daemon but does not enhance parameter understanding beyond the 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 clearly states it controls the inbox polling daemon for email governance (Pro), with specific verbs and resource. It distinguishes from sibling daemon tools by focusing on inbox/email governance.

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 usage for controlling the email governance daemon, but does not explicitly list when to use versus alternatives like delimit_daemon_status. Context of 'Pro' and 'email governance' provides clear usage context.

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