Создание почтового ящика

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) with no destructive behavior. The description adds the API version and optional features, but does not disclose potential side effects, idempotency issues, or auth requirements beyond what the annotations imply. It is consistent with annotations but adds limited extra 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 two concise sentences, each providing distinct valuable information: the core action and key optional features. No filler or repetition, with the most important detail (creates mailbox) front-loaded.

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?

Given the 7 parameters and rich schema, the description is adequate for a straightforward creation tool. It does not describe response/return values, but no output schema exists, and the description conveys the essential purpose and capabilities. Slightly more detail on potential errors or uniqueness constraints could improve completeness, but it's not critically lacking.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, including detailed explanations for mailbox and password. The description only mentions owner full name and spam filter settings, which echoes the schema but does not add new semantic meaning. It meets the baseline for complete schema coverage without further clarification.

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 action ('Создаёт новый почтовый ящик') and specifies the resource ('на указанном домене'), with a direct mention of API v2 to distinguish from v1 siblings. It also highlights key configurable aspects (owner full name, spam filter), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 gives clear context: it is for creating a single mailbox on a specified domain. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like batch_create_mailboxes or create_mailbox_v1, but the API v2 reference implies it is the current single-creation tool. There are no exclusions or when-not-to-use guidelines.

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