apple_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, but it only says 'Control' and lists actions. It fails to disclose that actions like send, mark_all_read, and move_to_trash are mutating, nor does it mention the confirm/preview workflow described in 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?

The description is short and front-loaded, but the action list merely duplicates the schema's enum without adding value. It is not bloated, but the redundancy means not every element earns its place.

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?

With 7 parameters, 10 actions, no annotations, and no output schema, this minimal description is insufficient to convey operation semantics or safety behaviors. The schema's action descriptions compensate for parameter semantics, but the description itself offers no overview of expected results or confirmation requirements.

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%, with the action enum's descriptions explaining each command. The tool description itself adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 states 'Control Apple Mail' and lists all 10 actions, clearly identifying the tool's scope as a mail controller. It distinguishes itself from sibling Apple tools by naming the specific resource, but the actions are only named, not explained.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use apple_mail versus alternatives like apple_messages or apple_notification. The action list provides no context about suitable use cases or exclusions.

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