Undo Mailbox Import

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

Discloses that it queues deletion and that existing mail is untouched, which adds context beyond annotations. However, it does not explain what 'queue deletion' entails (e.g., async, batch processing) or clarify side effects, leaving gaps for an agent.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action. No unnecessary words, and every 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?

For a two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description provides sufficient context about purpose and basic behavior. Minor gaps remain (e.g., async nature, prerequisites), but overall it is reasonably complete.

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?

Both parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The description does not elaborate on how these parameters are used or validated.

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?

Clearly states that the tool queues deletion of messages created by an import, specifying the resource and action. It distinguishes from the general concept of undoing imports but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like shipmail_cancel_mailbox_import.

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?

Implies usage after an import to undo its effects, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like shipmail_cancel_mailbox_import. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite conditions are stated.

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