Update mailbox

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the partial-update semantics (only provided fields are changed), which is important and goes beyond the schema. However, it does not mention permissions required, error behavior if the mailbox does not exist, or side effects of role changes. This is adequate but not comprehensive, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action ('Update a mailbox') and followed by a concise explanation of scope. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or irrelevant detail. This is exemplary conciseness.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete: it defines the operation, enumerates mutable fields, and clarifies partial-update behavior. It could additionally specify that the mailbox must already exist or describe the return format, but for a straightforward update tool, the essential context is covered. This is a 4.

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?

The schema already has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantic value by stating 'Only the provided fields are changed,' which clarifies how the optional parameters behave collectively—omitted fields remain untouched. This goes beyond individual schema descriptions and enhances understanding, so a 4 is warranted.

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 tool's purpose: updating a mailbox's display name, password, disabled status, or admin roles. It uses a specific verb ('Update') with a specific resource ('a mailbox') and enumerates the mutable fields. This also distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_mailbox and delete_mailbox, so purpose clarity is high.

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 provides clear context that this is a partial update tool ('Only the provided fields are changed'), which guides usage. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools (e.g., create_mailbox for new mailboxes). Since the context is clear and the partial-update behavior is valuable guidance, this is a 4.

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