update_mailbox

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

With no annotations, the description adds behavioral details about parameter semantics (empty values leave fields unchanged, 'null' moves to top-level). However, it does not mention permissions, side effects, or what happens if both name and parent_id are empty.

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 clear purpose statement followed by structured parameter documentation. No unnecessary words.

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 the presence of an output schema, the description covers the core operation well. It explains both types of updates and parameter behaviors. Minor missing context includes error handling or prerequisites, but overall adequate.

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%, but the description provides clear explanations for all three parameters: mailbox_id, name, and parent_id, including special values like empty and 'null'. This adds significant value 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 the action ('update a mailbox') and the specific types of updates (rename or move under a different parent). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like create_mailbox or destroy_mailbox.

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 when to use the tool (when you need to rename or move a mailbox) but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention that creating a new mailbox should use create_mailbox.

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