unbind_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 explicitly states that unbinding does not delete emails on the server, which is the key side-effect an agent needs to know. It also implies the operation is local to the MCP connection via the schema's 'Unbinds this MCP only' note, though that phrasing appears in the schema rather than the description. Overall, this is a simple operation and the main behavioral trait is disclosed.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences that lead with the primary action and immediately follow with the critical caveat about not deleting server emails. There is no redundant or filler content, and every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and a straightforward operation, the description covers what the action is and its key non-destructive effect. The essential context (unbind local connection, preserve server data) is present, and no additional return-value or error-handling details are necessary for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 100%, so the single parameter `account_id` is already fully documented with its source and behavioral implications. The description does not add any additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('解绑' / unbind) and resource ('邮箱' / mailbox), clearly indicating the action. It also adds a clarifying scope note that server messages are not deleted, which distinguishes it from any deletion-oriented operation. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools, though none of the siblings appear to perform a similar unbinding action.

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 used to unbind a connected mailbox, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. The input schema mentions 'Account id from list_accounts,' which is a prerequisite, but this guidance is not present in the description itself, leaving some inference to the agent.

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