Изменение почтового ящика (API v1)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that the tool uses structured blocks for four settings, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like authorization requirements, rate limits, or whether existing settings are replaced. No contradiction, but minimal added transparency.

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: the first states the core action, the second gives usage preference and a brief structural note. Every sentence adds value, front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 legacy v1 update tool with a complete schema and safety annotations, the description covers the essential context: what it does, that v2 is preferred, and the key structural distinction. It does not mention return values or side effects, but the absence of an output schema and the presence of annotations make this acceptable. Slightly more detail on when v1 is necessary would elevate it further.

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%, so all 8 parameters are already described in the schema. The description only lists four of the parameter names (auto_reply, spam_filter, forwarding_incoming, forwarding_outgoing) as 'structured blocks', which does not add meaning beyond the schema's existing 'объект' descriptions. Baseline of 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 'Обновляет почтовый ящик через API v1' (updates mailbox via API v1), using a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling v2 tool by explicitly naming update_mailbox (v2) as the preferred alternative.

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?

Explicitly instructs 'Предпочитай update_mailbox (v2)' (prefer v2), providing an alternative and indicating when to use this tool. It also notes the use of structured blocks, offering context for why v1 might be used.

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