mailkite_update_app_password

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

Beyond the annotations, the description explains a non-obvious behavioral constraint: the domain is immutable for the life of the password, with a security rationale about handing over mail access. It also discloses the auth requirement. This adds meaningful context without contradicting the annotations.

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 purposeful sentences: what the tool does, the critical domain limitation, and the auth requirement. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and contains no filler or 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 the full parameter schema, clear annotations, and the concise behavioral context, nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly. The fixed-domain caveat and token requirement are exactly the contextual details that matter.

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 schema already fully documents each parameter. The description adds a useful high-level summary of what can change but does not add syntax or semantic detail 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 names a specific verb and resource — 'Change what an app password covers' — and enumerates the editable attributes: label, address pattern, or protocols. This clearly differentiates it from sibling operations like rotate or delete because it focuses on reconfiguring an existing password's scope.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance by saying the domain is fixed and, for domain changes, instructs 'create a new password instead.' It also states a prerequisite ('Requires a management session token'), which helps an agent decide whether it can use this tool in the current context.

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