imap_add_account

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: server settings are auto-filled, only email/password are required, and there is a security-relevant credential-handling path. It does not say what happens if the account already exists (duplicate/overwrite) or where credentials are persisted, which is a real gap for an account-creating mutation.

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, front-loaded with the action, then the auto-configuration fact, then the routing guidance. No filler and no repetition of schema content.

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 5-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, required inputs, and the preferred workflow. It omits post-conditions such as duplicate-account behavior and credential storage, which would complete the picture for a mutating setup 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 coverage is already 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds value by stating that server settings are implicit and only two fields are needed out of five. It stops short of explaining the optional parameters (name, defaultBcc, sentFolder), which the schema handles on its own.

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 and resource ('Add a Viettel VMail account') and is immediately distinguishable from siblings like imap_update_account and imap_list_accounts. It also scopes the provider (Viettel VMail), which further narrows intent.

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?

Gives an explicit preference order: route the user to the setup wizard so the password never passes through chat, and use this tool only when credentials are supplied directly. Both the when and the when-not are stated, with the alternative named by command.

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