create_inbox

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully convey behavior. It discloses that it uses mail.tm with automatic fallback to 1secmail. However, it does not mention whether the inbox is persistent, any rate limits, or what happens if both services are down.

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, each earning its place: first states the core function, second adds reliability details. It is front-loaded with the key action and avoids unnecessary words.

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 tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description explains what it returns (a real email address) and the services used. It could mention the return format or error handling, but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to use 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?

Both parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds value by explaining that prefix appends a timestamp for uniqueness and that name can be used as a friendly identifier in other tools, which is not evident from the schema alone.

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 it creates a temporary email inbox and returns a real email address. It distinguishes from siblings like check_inbox and delete_inbox by focusing on creation. It includes specific technical details about services used (mail.tm, 1secmail).

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 when to use (when you need a temporary inbox) but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to siblings like verify_email. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided.

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