Update mailbox quota

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It simply states the action without revealing side effects, such as whether setting is idempotent, if it overwrites the existing quota, or if it can be rolled back. This is a meaningful omission for a mutation tool.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and includes the unit of measurement. There is no wasted text.

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 two-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description is nearly sufficient to invoke correctly. However, without annotations or an output schema, it lacks behavioral context (e.g., what happens on failure or if the quota is set to 0), which slightly limits completeness.

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 documents both parameters (address and storageLimit) with clear descriptions, and the description adds no extra meaning beyond restating that the limit is in gigabytes. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description is adequate but not additive.

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 ('Set') and identifies the resource ('mailbox') and the attribute ('storage limit') with units. It clearly distinguishes this from get_mailbox_quota (retrieval) and update_mailbox (generic update), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool (setting a mailbox's storage limit) but does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions, such as recommending get_mailbox_quota for checking current quota or warning against using update_mailbox for quota. Usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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