mailbox-settings

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true, low risk. The description adds that 'get' is read-only and 'set' actions configure specific features. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., whether changes are reversible, permissions required) beyond what the schema and annotations imply.

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 two sentences long, efficiently front-loading the overall purpose and then detailing actions. Every word serves a purpose with no redundancy.

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 12 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the functional areas but omits details on return values (e.g., the structure of a 'get' response), error handling, or defaults. This leaves some gaps for an AI agent to infer.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage, but the description adds value by grouping parameters under their relevant actions (e.g., startDateTime for set-auto-replies). This helps an agent understand which parameters apply to which action, improving semantic clarity beyond the schema alone.

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 'Manage mailbox settings' and enumerates three distinct actions (get, set-auto-replies, set-working-hours), specifying what each does. This verb-resource pairing effectively distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like 'read-email' or 'manage-category'.

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 lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not provide criteria for choosing mailbox-settings over sibling tools such as 'access-shared-mailbox' or 'update-email', nor does it explain when not to use it.

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