infomaniak_set_mailbox_spam_policy

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

The description adds valuable behavior beyond annotations: it reveals the two-phase commit mechanism (current-state diff, confirmation token, conditional apply if state unchanged). This is complementary to the destructiveHint and openWorldHint annotations, providing concurrency control details not present in structured metadata.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core function, with the second sentence explaining the critical two-phase behavior. No wasted 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?

The description is adequate for a tool with a comprehensive input schema and an output schema. It covers the essential purpose and the two-phase commit workflow, though it could be slightly more explicit about the invocation sequence (plan call without token, apply call with token). This is partially addressed by the confirmation_token parameter description.

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?

All 8 parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add per-parameter details. It does mention the categories of fields (spam movement, smart filtering folders, admin note), but does not add new meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 the specific verb 'Update' and lists the exact resources: mailbox spam movement, smart filtering folders, and admin note. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like infomaniak_update_mailbox_folders or infomaniak_purge_spam_folder.

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 for when this tool is relevant (updating spam policy), but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion cases. For example, it doesn't state 'use infomaniak_update_mailbox_folders for folder name changes' or 'do not use this for filter scripts'.

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