Create a mailbox

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

Annotations already cover idempotency and non-read-only behavior, but the description adds that the tool reports live and index verification after creation. This adds behavioral context beyond the structured data and does not contradict the annotations, even though the exact meaning of 'live and index verification' is not expanded.

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 one front-loaded sentence that states the action, the idempotent property, and the verification outcome. Every phrase adds relevant information, with no waste 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 tool with only two required scalar parameters, a detailed schema, and annotations covering idempotency and mutation, the description provides enough context for correct invocation. The main gap is that the verification reporting is not described in terms of a concrete return shape, and error behavior for an invalid account is unspecified.

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 fully documents both account and path, including the nested-folder behavior of slashes. Since schema coverage is high, the description does not need to contribute additional parameter meaning; it is at baseline for this situation.

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 — 'Create a mailbox' — and adds idempotency, which distinguishes this tool from siblings like mailbox_delete and create_draft. The phrase 'report live and index verification' also clarifies what the operation does beyond just creation.

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 is clear this tool is for creating mailboxes, and the idempotency qualifier implies it can be used when a mailbox might already exist. However, the description does not explicitly say when to prefer this over listing mailboxes or other related alternatives, so the usage guidance is implied rather than direct.

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