create_mailbox

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without revealing what happens on duplicate names, whether parent folders are auto-created, permission requirements, or any side effects. For a mutating operation, this is insufficient transparency.

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 a single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. There is no wasted wording, and it is appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter.

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?

Although the tool is simple with one parameter, the description lacks essential context such as behavior on duplicate mailboxes, whether the operation is idempotent, or how it integrates with the IMAP account's existing folder hierarchy. With no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse to fully inform an agent.

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 already describes the 'name' parameter 100% (coverage is high), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning about naming conventions, allowed characters, or path syntax beyond the schema's simple 'Name of the mailbox to create'. It neither compensates nor detracts.

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 uses the specific verb 'Create' and clearly names the resource 'new mailbox/folder in the IMAP account', distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_mailboxes and delete_mailbox. It is unambiguous about the operation being performed.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention situations where creating a mailbox is appropriate, nor does it exclude cases like existing mailboxes or name restrictions. This leaves the agent to infer usage context.

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