update_mailbox

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

No annotations, so description carries full burden. It discloses that prototype projects are locked to 'run402_transparency' and attempting 'none' yields a specific typed error, which is helpful for understanding behavior beyond the schema.

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 front-loaded sentences with no unnecessary words. Every sentence conveys essential information about the tool's purpose and 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?

Given no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral constraint. It could mention what happens on success (e.g., returns updated mailbox), but the main purpose and error condition are adequately described.

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 value by naming the error type (FOOTER_POLICY_TIER_REQUIRED) and reiterating the lock condition, which clarifies the enum implications beyond the schema's 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 it updates per-mailbox settings, with specific mention of footer_policy. The verb 'update' and resource 'mailbox settings' are unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like set_mailbox_defaults (project-wide) and create_mailbox.

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 specifies the supported values and provides context about when to use (for current support of footer_policy). It lacks explicit exclusion of alternatives, but the scope is clear.

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