Изменение почтового ящика

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) already indicate safety, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: partial update semantics (only changed fields) and how complex blocks must be structured. It also references the OpenAPI schema for spam details. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful nuance beyond what annotations offer.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and key attributes, followed by a concise usage tip. Every word contributes; no redundancy or filler.

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 an update tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the input structure and usage. It mentions the API version, partial updates, and complex object requirements. It could mention return values or prerequisites, but these are less critical for an update action and are partially implied by required fields. Overall, it is sufficiently complete given the schema richness.

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 parameters are well-documented. The description adds value with the 'only changed fields' instruction and clarifies that complex fields (forward/autoreply/spam) expect objects with is_enabled, which aligns with schema descriptions. This goes beyond simply repeating schema info, though it doesn't fully explain all nested fields itself.

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 updates a mailbox (API v2) and lists specific updatable attributes (пароль, комментарий, ФИО, спам-фильтр, автоответчик, пересылки). The explicit mention of 'API v2' distinguishes it from the sibling update_mailbox_v1, and the verb 'Обновляет' conveys a precise action.

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 operational guidance: 'Передавай только изменяемые поля' (pass only changed fields) and explains the structure of complex blocks (objects with is_enabled and additional fields). It does not explicitly state when to use this tool over update_mailbox_v1, but the API version mention provides a functional differentiator. This is clear enough but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative references.

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