Массовое создание почтовых ящиков (API v1)

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

Annotations already convey that this is not read-only and not destructive, so the bar for additional behavioral disclosure is lowered. The description adds that this is the v1 API variant and recommends v2, which is useful context but does not disclose potential partial failures, error handling, or other behavioral nuances. With annotations present, this is adequate but not rich.

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, with the core action front-loaded. It avoids redundancy and gets straight to the point, making every word earn its place.

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 tool has full schema coverage, annotations indicating a non-read-only, non-destructive write operation, and no output schema. The description is sufficient for a straightforward batch create action, but it could have included notes about partial failure behavior or response format. Nonetheless, given the context, it is reasonably complete.

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%, meaning every parameter (domain, mailboxes, login, password, comment, owner_full_name) already has a descriptive label in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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 tool's function: 'Создаёт несколько ящиков на домене' (creates multiple mailboxes on a domain) via API v1. It also differentiates itself from the v2 sibling by explicitly naming the preferred alternative. This meets the criterion of specific verb+resource with sibling differentiation.

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 explicitly instructs users to 'Предпочитай batch_create_mailboxes (v2)' (prefer batch_create_mailboxes v2), providing a clear alternative and implying this tool is a fallback/legacy version. This gives direct guidance on when to use an alternative, satisfying the when/when-not/alternatives criterion.

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