Suspend Mailbox

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains what is blocked and that the suspension is reversible ('until the manual suspension is removed'). This complements the idempotentHint=true annotation and does not contradict any annotation.

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—two sentences that are front-loaded with the action and then explain the consequences. Every sentence adds value.

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 (suspend with idempotency), the description covers the essential behavior. An output schema exists but need not be described. Parameters are fully documented in the schema, so no 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 description does not need to add parameter detail. It does not provide any extra meaning beyond what the input schema already describes for 'id' and 'idempotency_key'.

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 ('suspend a mailbox') and specifies exactly what is blocked (authentication, sending, receiving, Assistant automation). It distinguishes from sibling tools like shipmail_resume_mailbox and shipmail_delete_mailbox by describing the reversible suspension behavior.

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?

While the effect is clear, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage for blocking mailbox functions without deleting, but does not mention when not to use it or suggest other tools like shipmail_delete_mailbox for permanent removal.

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