Resume Mailbox

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint: true and destructiveHint: false. The description adds context that other restrictions (billing, security, etc.) persist, which is useful beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose side effects, required permissions, or failure modes. The added value is moderate.

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 concise sentence that is action-oriented and front-loaded. Every word earns its place, with no wasted text.

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 tool's simplicity, the description covers the main effect and important caveats. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The description is complete enough for a resume operation, though it could mention preconditions like 'the mailbox must be manually suspended first'.

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%, and both parameters are already described in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what is in the schema, so 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 begins with the verb 'Remove' and clearly identifies the resource as 'a mailbox's manual suspension'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'shipmail_suspend_mailbox' by specifying 'manual suspension' and noting that other restrictions remain, which sets clear boundaries.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies it is the counterpart to suspending a mailbox, but lacks explicit conditions like 'use after resolving the suspension reason'. The note about other restrictions is a behavioral caveat, not a usage guideline.

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