Create Catch-All

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

With no annotations available, the description must convey behavioral traits but does not. It simply states 'Create a catch-all' without mentioning side effects, validation requirements, confirmation steps (there's a resend_confirmation sibling), or reversibility. The description adds no context beyond the tool's name.

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 a single short sentence, which is efficient, but it largely repeats the title and adds minimal value. It is front-loaded but doesn't earn its place since it doesn't provide new information beyond the name.

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 create tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits crucial context such as whether a confirmation is required (indicated by mail_catchalls_resend_confirmation sibling), what happens to existing catch-alls, and any limitations. The simple input schema covers parameters, but the operational context is missing.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what the schema already documents. It correctly lists forward_to and mailbox_id as required, but offers no further clarification such as format or constraints.

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 action: 'Create a catch-all for a mailbox.' It specifies a concrete verb ('create') and resource ('catch-all') with context ('for a mailbox'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list, delete, and resend_confirmation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., existing mailbox), confirmation flows, or scenarios where the catch-all would be appropriate. Sibling tools like mail_catchalls_delete and mail_catchalls_resend_confirmation hint at related usage, but the description gives no exclusions or contextual direction.

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