add mail account

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent mutation. The description adds that it executes the verified command 'v-add-mail-account', which is a useful implementation detail, but it does not disclose side effects such as quota enforcement or success/failure behavior. This is moderate added value beyond 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 compact, with the main purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. The second sentence adds a relevant implementation note without bloat. It is appropriately concise, though it could benefit from a bit more detail without becoming verbose.

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 has five parameters, four required, and only 20% schema coverage, the description is too sparse. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., the user and domain must exist), behavior on duplicate accounts, or any special constraints. The output schema exists, so return details are not required, but the description still leaves significant gaps for an agent to call it correctly.

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 only 20%, with only 'password' having a description. The tool description does not elaborate on any parameter meanings. Although parameter names like 'account', 'domain', and 'quota' are suggestive, the description does not explicitly clarify their roles or constraints, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 verb and resource: 'Create a mailbox.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_mail_domain (domain creation) and add_user (user creation). The purpose is unambiguous and not a tautology.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and siblings. No mention of when to use add_mail_domain instead or any conditions like domain existence.

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