mailkite_create_app_password

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

The annotations only record non-readOnly, non-idempotent, and non-destructive hints, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It explicitly discloses that the password is returned exactly once and never again, plus the authentication prerequisite. This is materially important for how an agent should handle the result.

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 three short sentences with the action front-loaded, followed by the crucial secret-disclosure warning and the auth requirement. Every sentence 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?

All parameters are fully described by the schema, and the description covers the non-obvious output caveat: the secret will not be returned again. It does not spell out the exact return envelope or explicitly route to rotate/list/delete siblings, but those are minor for a straightforward creation tool.

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%, so the parameter objects already fully define label, domain, address, domainId, and protocols. The description only echoes 'domain and address pattern' and adds little beyond the schema, which is the baseline case.

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 identifies the verb ('Create'), the resource ('app password'), and the scope ('for one domain and address pattern'). Its use case, handing it to a mail client or agent, also distinguishes it from the sibling lifecycle tools (list, rotate, delete, update).

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?

It clearly communicates when this tool is relevant: when a password must be generated for a client or agent, and it flags the management session token requirement. It does not explicitly name alternatives for lost secrets or rotation, so it is not maximally explicit, but the intended context is clear.

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