mailbox_done

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the message becomes 'handled' and may later be archived, but it does not explain idempotency, permissions, whether the message disappears from normal views, or what the response contains.

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, front-loaded with the primary verb, and contains no filler. Both sentences contribute meaning, though brevity comes at the cost of missing important context.

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 tool this might be sufficient on surface, but with no annotations, no output schema, and undocumented parameters, the description leaves too much unstated. It also fails to position the tool against its mailbox siblings.

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 0% and the description names no parameters. The agent must infer that msg_id identifies the message and what agent_id means, so the description adds no 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 action, 'Mark a message as handled', which clearly identifies the operation and resource. It is distinguishable from siblings like mailbox_send and mailbox_reply, though it does not explicitly name the distinction.

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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as mailbox_list or mailbox_check. The statement 'Done messages can be archived' hints at a consequence but does not provide decision context or exclusions.

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