mailbox-settings

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

The description adds 'idempotent — safe to retry; sets are PATCH-style and merge with existing state', which provides behavioral context beyond the annotations (idempotentHint=true). No contradictions.

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, front-loading the core purpose and safety. While somewhat long, it efficiently packs necessary detail without redundancy. Minor room for tighter phrasing.

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 all actions and key parameters. It mentions return value for set actions. Lacks explicit error handling or permissions, but overall informative.

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 contextualizing parameters (e.g., 'action=get (default) returns settings — use section to filter'). It explains the relationship between action and other parameters, exceeding baseline.

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 'Read or update mailbox-level settings' and elaborates on specific actions (get, set-auto-replies, set-working-hours). It distinguishes the tool from siblings by focusing on mailbox settings, not email reading or other operations.

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 explains when to use each action (default get with section filter, or set-auto-replies/set-working-hours with their parameters). It does not explicitly mention when not to use, but the guidance is clear enough for typical use cases.

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