Import a Mailbox

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

Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds substantial behavioral context: the import runs in the background, requires an app password, and the Outlook limitation. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Three concise sentences covering purpose, usage tips, and follow-up action. No fluff or redundancy; each sentence adds value.

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?

Despite 9 parameters, the description covers the core workflow and points to a polling mechanism for progress. The output schema likely documents return values, so explicit return info isn't needed. A minor gap: no mention of potential idempotency or duplicate import handling.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds a useful tip about app passwords (relevant to the password parameter) and the Outlook restriction (affects provider parameter), but does not systematically explain each parameter beyond the schema. Acceptable for full schema coverage.

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 ('Start importing mail from another provider into a shipmail mailbox over IMAP') and the resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like shipmail_undo_mailbox_import and shipmail_get_mailbox_import by specifying the start action and background execution.

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 explicit guidance: use an app password, states that Outlook imports must be done via dashboard (cannot use this tool), and advises polling shipmail_get_mailbox_import for progress. This clearly helps the agent decide when and how to use the tool.

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