create_item_alias

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Create an email alias item.' This implies a write operation yet does not mention that the write requires confirm=true, where the item will be created (shareId/vaultName), or any side effects. The schema supplies some detail, but the tool description itself is nearly empty of behavioral context.

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 with no wasted words, and the core purpose is front-loaded. However, it is arguably under-specified for a tool with five parameters and no annotations, so it earns a high but not perfect score.

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, no output schema, and several parameters that control destination and confirmation, the description is too sparse. While the schema provides parameter-level details, the overall tool description fails to explain required confirmation behavior, destination semantics, or expected outcomes, leaving significant gaps for an agent deciding to call it.

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 input schema already documents all five parameters and their meanings. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, which is exactly the baseline scenario for a score of 3.

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 states a specific action ('Create') and a specific resource ('email alias item'), which clearly identifies what the tool does. This distinguishes it from sibling create_*_item tools (login, note, credit card, wifi, custom, identity) by item type. The purpose is immediately understandable.

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. It does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or why an agent should choose this over create_custom_item or other create_*_item tools. Usage is only implied by the name and item type, not explicitly stated.

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