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. It discloses that the tool returns a 'shaped mailbox with new state' and gives an example, which adds useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention permissions needed, rate limits, or whether changes are reversible, leaving gaps 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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidelines, return info, and an example—all in four concise sentences with zero waste. Each sentence earns its place by adding distinct 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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by explaining purpose, usage, and return behavior. However, it could be more complete by detailing error cases or side effects (e.g., what happens to existing settings not mentioned), given the complexity of updating multiple fields.

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 schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description lists the updatable fields but doesn't add syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., quota in bytes, status enum). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'update' and the resource 'mailbox', with specific fields listed (display name, quota, status, webhook setting). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_mailbox' (creation) and 'delete_mailbox' (deletion), making the purpose specific and differentiated.

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 'When to use' section provides clear context for usage (change ownership label, suspend, raise quota), which helps guide the agent. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use this tool or name alternatives (e.g., vs. 'create_mailbox' for new mailboxes), so it lacks full exclusion guidance.

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