create-newsletter-smart-mailboxes

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries behavioral disclosure. It reveals that dryRun=false edits Apple Mail's SyncedSmartMailboxes.plist, mentions backup/atomicity/preservation of existing entries, warns it can create many mailboxes at once, and notes the ~400 message scan limit and potential slowness. This exceeds expectations for safety-critical behavior.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Use when, Returns, Do not use when, Safety). Every sentence provides distinct value: use case, return value, exclusions, and safety caveats. No filler or 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 the tool's complexity (bulk operations, mutating plist, performance concerns) and the absence of annotations, the description covers all required context: when to use, when not to, safety profile, performance trade-offs, and return values. An output schema exists, so return details are additionally covered elsewhere.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for days, dryRun, and minCount, including defaults and minimum values. The description reinforces the dryRun safety semantics and mentions match scores in the return, but adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'auto-discovering newsletter/bulk senders in your INBOX(es)' and 'creating a dedicated smart mailbox per sender'. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like create-smart-mailbox and create-mailbox by emphasizing bulk discovery and the 'NL: <sender>' naming pattern.

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?

Explicit 'Use when' and 'Do not use when' sections name exact alternatives: use create-smart-mailbox for known senders and create-mailbox for real folders. This is textbook usage guidance with both inclusion and exclusion criteria.

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