Inboxes: Add or remove agent bot

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the required User API key auth header, the concrete endpoint, and the null-to-disconnect semantic that is not visible anywhere in the schema. It still omits whether the change is reversible and what permission level is needed.

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 core behavior (connect/disconnect) is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by endpoint, auth, and body fields in a compact line. The trailing sentence about Persian/Arabic-Indic digits and unchanged text is generic boilerplate that only marginally applies to an ID-valued payload, slightly diluting focus.

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 100% schema coverage, annotations, and no output schema, the description supplies the missing operational frame: HTTP path, auth mechanism, required body field, and the extra_body escape hatch. It is largely complete, with only return behavior and required role/permission left unstated.

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 baseline of 3 applies, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: agent_bot is flagged as required and, critically, that passing null disconnects rather than the schema's declared number|string type implying a value is always expected. This is real semantic value beyond the schema.

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?

States a concrete verb+resource pair ("Connect an agent bot to an inbox") and adds the inverse operation (disconnect via null). It is clearly distinguishable in intent from read siblings like gapify_show_inbox_agent_bot and gapify_list_inbox_agents, though it never names a sibling to route against explicitly.

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 one conditional rule: pass agent_bot as null to disconnect, which implies the connect case otherwise. There is no guidance on when to prefer this endpoint over the broader inbox-agent operations (gapify_add_inbox_agents / gapify_update_inbox_agents) or any stated prerequisites beyond auth.

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