bx24_mail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects, destructive actions, permission requirements, rate limits, or response behavior. Some destructive actions are marked in the input schema's action enum, but the tool description itself adds little behavioral transparency beyond listing methods.

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 short and front-loaded with the mail domain, then lists method families and useful RU/EN keywords. It avoids verbose prose and is appropriately sized for a tool that delegates specifics to the action enum. The method list is slightly redundant with the schema but not harmful.

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?

This is a complex tool with 13 parameters, 39 enumerated actions, nested objects, and no output schema or annotations. The description only names the domain and method families; it does not explain common workflows, prerequisites, destructive-operation confirmation, or response/return expectations. An agent would need to rely heavily on the schema to use it safely and correctly.

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 schema already documents all 13 parameters adequately. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond naming the method families. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the description does not need to compensate for schema gaps.

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 identifies the Bitrix24 mail domain and the resource families it covers (mailboxes, messages, recipients, mail services, filters) and lists core operations like send, reply, and forward. It is less a single verb+resource statement and more a domain label, but it clearly distinguishes bx24_mail from CRM, tasks, disk, and IM sibling tools.

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 establishes clear context: use this tool for Bitrix24 mail operations such as mailboxes, messages, sending, replying, forwarding, filters, and recipients. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling set is strongly domain-separated, so the mail scope is sufficient for tool selection.

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