mail_create_mailbox

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only mutation (readOnlyHint: false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint: false). The description adds no behavioral context beyond that, such as what happens if a mailbox already exists or if the parent path is invalid.

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, clear sentence that is front-loaded with the key action and resource. No unnecessary words or details.

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?

For a simple create tool with no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose but lacks details on error conditions (e.g., duplicate mailbox) or prerequisites (e.g., account must exist). It is minimally adequate.

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 low (33%), with only parentPath described. The description mentions 'optionally nested under an existing parent mailbox path' but does not add semantics for the required parameters name and accountName.

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 action ('Create'), the resource ('mailbox/folder'), and the scope ('under an account') with an optional nesting behavior. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like mail_delete_mailbox and mail_rename_mailbox.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., mail_create_draft) or when not to use it. It lacks any explicit context for selecting this tool over other creation tools.

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