create-smart-mailbox

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses the safety-critical behavior: it edits SyncedSmartMailboxes.plist directly, backs up with .bak, writes atomically, never rewrites existing smart mailboxes, and warns about quitting Mail first to avoid overwrites. This is rich, actionable behavioral context 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 well-structured with clear headings (Use when, Returns, Do not use when, Safety) and every sentence adds value. It is detailed but not redundant, and it front-loads the purpose before diving into caveats.

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?

The description covers purpose, usage boundaries, safety behavior, return values, and the German-localization rationale. It is complete for a tool with no annotations and an output schema (mentioned as existing), leaving minimal gaps for the agent to infer.

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 description coverage is 75%, so the schema already documents three of four parameters. The description adds mild context by mentioning 'sender, subject, or body substring,' which maps to fromContains, subjectContains, and bodyContains, but doesn't provide significant new semantics beyond the schema's 'contains' descriptions.

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 it creates an Apple Mail smart mailbox (a criteria-based virtual view) matching sender, subject, or body substrings, distinguishing it from real folder creation via create-mailbox. The verb 'creating' plus the specific resource and matching criteria make the purpose unambiguous.

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 provide clear context, including a named alternative (create-mailbox) for real folders. It also mentions the German-localized macOS scenario, helping the agent decide when this specific workaround is needed.

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