update_mailbox_settings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'Update mailbox settings' and lists status values; it does not state side effects, whether existing settings are overwritten, what 'scheduled' does without a schedule parameter, or what happens on an empty call with both fields optional.

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 text is short and front-loads the action before the parameter note. The first sentence is close to a restatement of the tool name, so it is not perfectly lean, but there is no filler or unnecessary detail.

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 mutating mailbox tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not clarify the meaning of 'scheduled', what the body parameter should contain, or what the tool returns or changes, leaving key operational questions unanswered.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain both parameters, but it only documents automatic_replies_status via three allowed values. automatic_replies_body is left completely undefined, so the agent has no guidance on expected format, length, or relationship to the status value.

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 clear action and resource—updating mailbox settings—and adds a concrete detail by enumerating accepted automatic_replies_status values. It is distinguishable from the read-only sibling get_mailbox_settings through the update verb, though it does not explicitly name any sibling or scope beyond auto-reply settings.

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 rather than get_mailbox_settings or update_message, and no mention of prerequisites such as required permissions or a mailbox context. The description only restates what the tool does, leaving the when-to-use decision entirely to the agent.

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