mail_createAliasV1

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It mentions creation and delivery but omits behavioral traits such as idempotency, error conditions, permission requirements, or side effects. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 long, front-loads the purpose, and contains no extraneous information. Every sentence adds value, achieving high conciseness.

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 covers the core behavior but lacks details on return values (no output schema), required permissions, or potential error scenarios. For a simple create tool, it is somewhat complete but not fully sufficient given the absence of annotations.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters have descriptions. The description adds context by stating that the alias address is formed from the local part and the mailbox's domain, reinforcing the relationship. This adds moderate value beyond the schema, meeting the baseline.

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 'Create' with the resource 'alias for the given mailbox'. It explains how the alias address is formed from the local part and mailbox domain, and the delivery behavior. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like mail_deleteAliasV1 or mail_listAliasesV1.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusions. While the purpose is clear, there is no guidance on prerequisites like mailbox existence or duplicate handling. Implicit usage is adequate but not explicit.

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