update_mailbox

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

With no annotations, the description compensates by disclosing that prototype projects are locked to 'run402_transparency' and attempting 'none' surfaces a specific typed error, revealing important behavioral constraints.

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 concise with three sentences, no excess, and the main purpose is front-loaded. However, structure could be improved with bullet points for constraints.

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 tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers input constraints well but does not mention the return format or success behavior, leaving some context 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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds meaning by explaining the supported footer_policy values and the prototype lock, which are not fully covered in the schema's enum description.

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 updates per-mailbox settings, specifically the footer_policy, and distinguishes itself from other mailbox-related tools (create, delete, get) by focusing on updates.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the name and context imply it's for modifying mailbox settings. No exclusion criteria or alternative tool references are provided.

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