Consume Partner Mailbox Credential Grant

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

Annotations include destructiveHint: true and readOnlyHint: false. The description adds value by stating that 'The secret is returned exactly once and the operator is notified', which informs about secret lifetime and notification behavior beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions with annotations.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and includes critical behavioral notes. Every sentence is essential and there is no redundancy.

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?

Given there is an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the core behavior (consumption, single-use, secret return, operator notification) and usage condition. However, the lack of parameter descriptions slightly reduces completeness, but overall sufficient.

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 only 25% (only grant_id has a description). The description does not explain the other parameters (name, expires_at, allowed_cidrs), so it fails to compensate for the low schema coverage. The description adds minimal parameter meaning 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 clearly states the action ('Consume an operator-approved, single-use grant and issue an embedded-webmail credential'), including the verb 'consume' and the resource 'grant'. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like shipmail_list_partner_mailbox_credential_grants by focusing on consumption rather than listing.

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 specifies 'Call only after explicit partner approval', providing a clear condition for use. It does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use it, but the single-use nature implies it should not be called multiple times for the same grant.

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