create_email_account

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers limited behavioral insight. It implies a write operation ('create') but doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether it's idempotent, error handling, or what happens on success (e.g., returns an account ID). For a mutation tool with 11 parameters, this lack of detail is a significant gap.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and includes useful parenthetical examples. Every element earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complex creation tool with 11 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or how it integrates with sibling tools (e.g., campaign-related functions). The agent lacks sufficient context to use this tool effectively in isolation.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds minimal value by hinting at credential types (e.g., Gmail, Outlook) which loosely relates to the 'type' enum, but doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 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 action ('create a new email account') and specifies the mechanism ('by connecting existing SMTP/IMAP credentials'), which distinguishes it from tools like 'update_email_account' or 'get_email_account'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling 'add_campaign_email_accounts', which might have overlapping functionality in a campaign context.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_email_account' or 'add_campaign_email_accounts'. It mentions credential types (Gmail, Outlook, etc.) but doesn't specify prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases, leaving the agent with minimal context for decision-making.

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