mail_createCatchAllV1

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

With no annotations provided, the description effectively discloses key behavioral traits: confirmation requirement, email to mailbox, and activation only after confirmation. It adds value by explaining the activation process and domain limit, though it does not detail error conditions or side effects.

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 three concise, well-structured sentences that front-load the purpose. Every sentence provides necessary information without waste.

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 creation tool with moderate complexity and no output schema, the description covers the core action, confirmation flow, and domain limit. It lacks explanation of return values or prerequisites, but is largely complete for an agent to understand the tool's function.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters with a clear description of mailboxId as 'Mailbox resource ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score 3 is appropriate.

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' and the resource 'catch-all', specifying it routes messages to unknown addresses to a given mailbox. It distinguishes from sibling tools like mail_deleteCatchAllV1 and mail_listCatchAllsV1 by detailing the creation and confirmation process.

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?

It implies usage when setting up a catch-all for a domain and mentions the one-per-domain constraint. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, leaving usage guidance somewhat implied.

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