Prepare mailbox changes

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

Annotations are all false hints, so they do not clarify side effects. The description adds that the result is a 'reviewable' plan, suggesting changes are not applied immediately, and it adds the case-insensitive substring behavior. However, it does not explicitly state that no mailbox changes are actually made, whether the plan is persisted, or what side effects occur when preparing it.

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 with two short clauses and no filler. The core action, 'prepare a reviewable bulk-change plan,' is front-loaded, and the matching behavior is added as a useful secondary 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?

The schema richly documents all 11 parameters and an output schema exists, so return-value details are covered. What is missing is workflow context: that the plan should be reviewed and then applied via triage_apply, and that preparing the plan does not itself apply mailbox changes. For a non-read-only tool with this many parameters, the one-sentence description is minimally sufficient but leaves important behavioral gaps.

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 because parameter descriptions already exist. The description adds meaningful value by specifying that sender filters match case-insensitively as substrings, which is not stated in the from_addr/to_addr schema entries. It doesn't elaborate on every parameter, but the schema already handles those details.

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 verb 'prepare' and the object 'reviewable bulk-change plan' state a specific, concrete function: this tool stages changes for review rather than executing them. This distinguishes it from siblings like triage_apply. The generic title 'Prepare mailbox changes' is clarified by the description's focus on producing a plan.

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 guidance or alternatives. 'Reviewable bulk-change plan' implies a plan-then-apply workflow, and sibling triage_apply exists, but the description never says to use this before triage_apply or that triage_apply should be used afterward. The matching-semantics clause is about filtering behavior, not tool selection.

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