Create Email Inbox

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that creation yields an email address and explains the addressing behavior. However, it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., is this a permanent action? Are there limits?) or authentication needs. The description is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 just two sentences, both front-loaded with the core purpose. It uses an example to illustrate the naming behavior, making it efficient and actionable with zero waste.

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 the tool has 4 optional parameters, no required fields, and no output schema, the description covers the main return value (email address) and the two usage modes. It could mention whether creation is reversible or if there are limits, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining how parameters like 'name' and 'org' combine to form a meaningful address, and how 'preferred' provides explicit local parts. This goes beyond the schema's dry descriptions.

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 creates a new email inbox and returns an @lobstermail.ai address. It distinguishes two modes: providing name/org yields a meaningful address, omitting them yields a random one. This specificity differentiates it from sibling tools like check_inbox or list_inboxes.

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 gives guidance on when to provide name/org versus omitting them for a random address, but does not explicitly compare when to use this tool over siblings like send_email or list_inboxes. The context is clear enough for an agent to decide, but a brief note on prerequisites or alternatives would improve it.

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