Export Mailbox

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds critical behavioral traits: creates a snapshot, runs as a background job, requires polling, and the download URL is short-lived. This goes beyond annotations to set expectations about async behavior and urgency.

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 extremely concise: only two short sentences that convey purpose, async nature, and follow-up steps. No wasted words; every sentence earns its place. Front-loaded with the core action.

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 the output schema exists (not shown), the description doesn't need to detail return values. It adequately covers the workflow and short-lived URL hint. However, it could mention approximate completion time or any size/retention limits for completeness. Still strong overall.

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% with both parameters already described (id as resource ID, idempotency_key as optional). The description adds no further parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool creates a private ZIP snapshot of one mailbox, using specific verb (create) and resource (mailbox export). It distinguishes from sibling tools like shipmail_get_mailbox_export (polling) and shipmail_create_mailbox_import (importing), leaving no ambiguity about its purpose.

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 explicitly outlines the workflow: create export, poll get endpoint until completion, then use download URL promptly. It provides clear usage context but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or comparison to all alternative tools (e.g., inbox export vs. full mailbox). Still, it covers the key steps.

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