Inboxes: Create an inbox

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

Annotations already declare the write/idempotency/open-world profile, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real context beyond them: the required User API key header, the fact that extra_body fields are merged into the request, and the unusual behavior that Persian/Arabic-Indic text and digits are forwarded unchanged. It does not say what the call returns, which is the remaining gap.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then compactly layers endpoint, auth, body fields, and encoding notes; every sentence carries information. Slightly dense but no filler.

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?

With no output schema, nothing tells the agent what a successful create returns (e.g., the new inbox ID) or what errors to expect, which matters for a non-idempotent mutation that downstream calls must reference. Auth, body, and encoding are otherwise covered adequately for a 5-param 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 a 3 is the baseline, but the description adds semantics the schema lacks: which body fields are accepted (name, avatar, channel), the escape hatch via extra_body, and the language/digit normalization behavior for text and numeric values.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ("Create a new inbox (channel) in the account") and even names the endpoint, so an agent knows exactly what operation this is. It is distinguishable from the read/list siblings by the verb, though it does not explicitly contrast with the nearby gapify_create_contact_inbox, which is a different resource.

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?

Usage is only implied by the create verb; there is no statement of when to prefer this over alternatives such as gapify_client_create_inbox or gapify_raw_request, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The auth header note gives useful context but not when-to-use guidance.

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