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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention that the tool likely validates credentials, stores configuration, or what happens if the account already exists. Essential side effects are omitted.

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 but could be slightly expanded to include key context without becoming verbose. It is front-loaded with the core action.

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?

The description is insufficient given the tool's complexity (10 parameters, no output schema, no annotations). It lacks context about the overall workflow, such as being a prerequisite to imap_connect or imap_test_account.

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 coverage is 100% with each parameter described. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the verb 'Add' and explicitly states the resource 'a new IMAP account configuration', distinguishing it from sibling tools like imap_update_account or imap_connect.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as imap_test_account (for testing) or imap_connect (for connecting). There are no prerequisites or exclusion conditions mentioned.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral effects, yet it only says 'Connect to an IMAP account.' It does not say whether this establishes a persistent session, authenticates, requires the account to already exist, or what happens on repeated connection attempts. This is a significant transparency gap for a tool that likely changes connection state.

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 very short and front-loaded, which is structurally fine. However, the single sentence essentially restates the tool name and provides no additional substance, making it under-specified rather than effectively concise.

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?

The tool has no annotations and no output schema, so the description must carry most of the context. It omits prerequisites, account selection logic, connection lifecycle, return values, and failure behavior. An agent would struggle to invoke this tool correctly with only the provided text.

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 baseline is 3 even if the description adds nothing. The description itself adds no extra meaning beyond the parameter names: both accountId and accountName are optional, and their relationship (mutual exclusivity, precedence, or requirements) is left unexplained.

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 states a verb ('connect') and a resource ('an IMAP account'), which conveys the basic action. However, it is vague about what connecting entails and does not differentiate this tool from related siblings like imap_test_account or imap_add_account. It reads more as a generic restatement of the tool name than a precise capability definition.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites such as an already-registered account, and no exclusions. The sibling list includes lifecycle tools like imap_add_account and imap_disconnect, but the description does not explain how imap_connect fits into that workflow.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states only the action itself and does not clarify whether disconnecting preserves the stored account, whether it fails if no connection exists, or whether it is idempotent. This is a meaningful gap for a state-changing operation.

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, tightly scoped sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. It is front-loaded with the verb and clearly names the target resource.

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 one-parameter tool, the description is minimally adequate: it states the action and the required input. However, without annotations, output schema, or any note about the connection lifecycle, an agent has no information about expected outcomes or failure conditions, so the definition is not fully complete.

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 input schema already documents accountId with 100% coverage, and the description merely echoes the same meaning without adding format, source, or lifecycle details. The schema handles the heavy lifting, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Disconnect') and a clear resource ('IMAP account'), which cleanly distinguishes it from sibling operations like imap_connect and imap_remove_account. An agent can tell exactly what action is 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 such as imap_remove_account or imap_connect. There is no mention of prerequisites like requiring an active connection, nor any exclusion of cases where removal or reconnection would be more appropriate.

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

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral burden. It explains behavior per file type: images returned inline, PDFs saved with optional text extraction, other files saved to downloads or custom savePath. No destructive actions are mentioned, and it appears consistent with a read operation.

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?

Three sentences, each essential and front-loaded. The first sentence defines the tool, the second explains behavior, the third gives usage guidance. No wasted words, and structure is logical.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers key behavioral aspects and usage. It references related tool for listing. Missing error handling details, but overall it's sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining how file type affects behavior (e.g., 'extractText' for PDFs) and connects to imap_get_email for listing. This goes beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 tool downloads a single attachment, specifying the required inputs (folder, uid, filename/contentId). It distinguishes between different file types and contrasts with just getting the message body, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly says 'Use when the user wants the actual file contents, not just the message body,' providing clear usage context. It also references imap_get_email for listing attachments. While it doesn't list explicit when-not-to-use scenarios or alternatives beyond the implied contrast, the guidance is sufficient.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and meets it: it discloses the default output behavior (clean Markdown in markdownContent), the intentional safety boundary (raw HTML is omitted 'so it never crosses the boundary'), the truncation guardrail (maxContentLength protects the context window), and what the tool deliberately does not do (attachment bytes). These are precisely the behavioral traits an agent needs to trust the tool's output.

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?

Five sentences, each earning its place: core purpose, default behavior and format variants, workflow prerequisite, truncation guidance, and sibling routing. The most decision-critical information (what it reads, default format) is front-loaded, and there is zero filler or repetition.

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 9-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers a great deal: return fields, format semantics, truncation, workflow, and alternatives. The remaining gap is that IMAP UIDs are folder-scoped, and with folder defaulting to INBOX, an agent could fetch from the wrong folder after a search in another folder — a subtle correctness point the description leaves to schema inference.

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 documents every parameter, warranting a baseline of 3. The description adds genuine value beyond the schema: it explains the rationale for maxContentLength ('protect the context window — raise it for long messages') and ties uid to the output of sibling tools. Some bodyFormat detail is restated from the schema rather than extended, which keeps this from a 5.

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 — "Read the FULL content of a single email by its UID" — and enumerates the full scope of what is returned (body, sender/recipients, date, attachment list, optional raw headers, text-attachment previews). It naturally distinguishes itself from siblings like imap_search_emails and imap_download_attachment, and the contrast with imap_get_latest_emails ('Use after imap_get_latest_emails gives you a uid') clarifies that the sibling only produces UIDs, not content.

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 prerequisite is explicit: 'Use after imap_search_emails or imap_get_latest_emails gives you a uid.' The exclusion is also explicit: 'To fetch attachment bytes, use imap_download_attachment.' This is textbook routing — the agent knows exactly when to invoke this tool and when to pick a sibling, with nothing left to inference.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It conveys a non-mutating enumeration operation, but it does not explicitly state that there are no side effects, does not require a connection, or what the returned account representation looks like.

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 short declarative sentence with no filler. The key scope ('all configured') is front-loaded, and every word earns its place.

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 zero-parameter tool, purpose and invocation are clearly complete enough for selection and execution. Without an output schema, a brief note about the returned account identifiers or how results feed into account-scoped sibling tools would improve completeness, but the low complexity makes this a minor gap.

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 input schema has zero properties and no required parameters, so there are no parameter details for the description to add. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool applies, and 'list all configured accounts' is sufficient.

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 'List' plus the clear resource 'configured IMAP accounts', making it obvious this is a read-only enumeration operation. It is distinctly different from siblings like imap_add_account, imap_remove_account, and imap_connect.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it name alternatives. The word 'configured' implies existing accounts rather than creation/connection, but an agent must infer when this is the right tool versus account-scoped operations.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal a notable behavioral trait: batching multiple UIDs into a single IMAP STORE round-trip. However, it does not mention side effects, reversibility, error behavior, or what happens on a successful call, which are meaningful gaps for a mutating tool.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the core action and followed by a relevant batching tip. Every word earns its place; there is no filler or redundant preamble.

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 low-complexity mutation tool with all parameters documented in the schema and no output schema, the description provides enough for an agent to invoke it correctly. It omits return/error details, but those are not forced by an output schema or complex side effects.

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 baseline is 3. The description's array/round-trip guidance is already present in the uid parameter's schema description, so the free text adds little new 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Mark one or many emails as read.' This makes the core operation clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling imap_mark_as_unread or imap_flag_email beyond the verb phrase, so sibling differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 batch guidance: 'pass an array to flag N messages in one IMAP STORE round-trip (useful when triaging).' This tells an agent when the array form is valuable. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives, so no exclusion or alternative routing is provided.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It does disclose the single IMAP STORE round-trip behavior for arrays, which is useful. It does not mention connection requirements, error outcomes, or reversibility, but the core effect of marking emails unread is clear.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the purpose is front-loaded, and the batching/IMAP STORE detail is directly useful for choosing how to pass UIDs. Every sentence earns its place.

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 mutation tool with a fully documented schema, the description is largely sufficient. It lacks any statement about the return value or prerequisites like an existing connection, and there is no output schema to fill that gap, so it is adequate but not fully complete.

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 input schema already provides full descriptions for all four parameters, including UID array semantics, atomicity, folder, and account resolution. The description repeats the single-vs-array distinction but adds little beyond what the schema already communicates, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 specifies a clear verb and resource: 'mark one or many emails as unread'. It also explains that it accepts a single UID or an array, and the operation is clearly distinct from siblings like imap_mark_as_read.

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?

It provides useful batching guidance ('pass an array to flag N messages in one IMAP STORE round-trip'), so the agent knows when to use the array form. However, it does not explicitly compare this tool to imap_mark_as_read, imap_flag_email, or other alternatives, leaving tool selection mostly implied.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the action ('Remove') but does not state whether removal is permanent, whether it deletes stored credentials, or what happens to existing connections or dependent operations.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and easy to scan, though it sacrifices context that could have been included without bloating the text.

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 low complexity (one required parameter) and the explicit name/action, the description is minimally viable. However, because this is a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, an agent would benefit from a note about permanence or side effects, which is absent.

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%: the input schema already explains accountId as 'ID of the account to remove'. The tool description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 specific verb ('Remove') and a clear resource ('IMAP account configuration'), making the operation unambiguous. Despite the description mirroring the tool name, it clearly identifies the destructive removal action and is distinct from sibling tools like imap_add_account or imap_update_account.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as imap_disconnect, imap_test_account, or imap_update_account. There is no mention of prerequisites, consequences, or conditions that would select this removal operation over others.

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

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it warns about the flagged/custom-keyword pitfall, explains that Trash/Spam/Drafts are skipped unless opted in, clarifies that lightweight headers are returned by default, and documents body rendering behavior. This goes well beyond a simple 'search emails' statement.

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 long but dense with valuable information, and it is structured around key behaviors, defaults, and alternatives. However, it opens with a caveat about flagged searches before stating the tool's core purpose, which slightly delays the main 'what does this do' message. Each sentence earns its place, but the front-loading could be tighter.

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 tool with 22 optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides a thorough operational picture: default folder, return fields, body inclusion trade-offs, folder exclusions, opt-in flags, and a critical edge case. It covers the essential behaviors an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly and interpret its results.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema: it explains the searchAllFolders behavior, the N+1 rationale for includeBody, how keywords relate to imap_folder_status customKeywords, and the flagged-filter caveat. This is genuinely actionable guidance, not a restatement of parameter names.

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 verb and resource: 'Search for emails matching criteria' and lists concrete filters like sender, recipient, subject, body, date range, and read/flagged status. It also ties the tool to a specific use case — finding messages when you know something about them but not their UID — and distinguishes it from imap_get_latest_emails.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool ('Use this to FIND messages when you know something about them but not their UID') and when to prefer a sibling ('For the newest messages without criteria, prefer imap_get_latest_emails'). It also gives practical guidance on searchAllFolders for messages filed away by rules and on includeBody to avoid the N+1 cost of calling imap_get_email per match.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the operation is a connection test, does not require re-entering credentials, and produces folder and message counts. It does not detail failure modes or whether a network connection is established, but it gives a clear behavioral picture.

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?

Two concise sentences lead with the purpose and then the output. Every sentence contributes necessary information, with no filler or redundant restatement.

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 one-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, usage context, and return values (folder count and message count). It could mention expected behavior on failure, but this is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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% and the sole parameter is described as 'Account ID to test'. The description adds the nuance 'existing account connection', which slightly reinforces that the ID must refer to an existing account, but it does not materially expand 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?

Description clearly states a specific verb ('Test') and resource ('existing account connection'), and specifies what the test validates (IMAP connectivity) and what it returns (folder count and message count). This distinguishes it from sibling account-management tools like imap_list_accounts or imap_connect.

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 phrase 'existing account connection' and 'without re-entering credentials' clearly conveys when this tool is appropriate: for testing already-configured accounts. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions, but the usage context is clear.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must cover behavioral traits. It implies mutation but does not disclose whether updates are partial, destructive, or require specific permissions. Basic transparency is present but incomplete.

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?

Two sentences front-loaded with purpose. No wasted words, efficiently conveys core information.

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 14 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is minimal. It does not explain return values, partial update behavior, or parameter relationships, leaving gaps for a tool of this complexity.

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 input schema has 100% parameter descriptions, so the description adds limited value. It hints at SMTP-related parameters but does not provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already offers.

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 ('Update an existing IMAP account') and specifies a common use case ('fixing SMTP settings without removing and re-adding the account'), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like imap_add_account and imap_remove_account.

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 a clear context for use (fixing SMTP settings) but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives. The implication is sufficient, but lacking explicit exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on the full burden. It discloses maximum upload size (configurable), auto-deletion after a TTL (configurable), and that the upload returns a path. This covers key behavioral aspects for a temporary upload tool.

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 concise at three sentences, each providing valuable information: purpose, integration detail, and behavioral constraints. No redundant or extraneous wording.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value (a path for attachments) and important limits. For a tool with 3 simple parameters, this is complete and meets all needs for selection and invocation.

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 input schema already describes all three parameters (content, filename, contentType) with 100% coverage. The description adds no extra semantics beyond stating the tool's overall purpose, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's purpose: uploading a file to the server for use as an email attachment. It distinguishes it from siblings like imap_download_attachment and imap_send_email by specifying the output is a path for attachments.

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 explains that the tool is useful for sending large attachments to avoid context window limits and that the returned path integrates with imap_send_email. It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the context is clear.

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