imap_create_mailbox

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the core mutation but says nothing about behavior when the mailbox already exists, whether nested folders are auto-created, or what side effects occur on the selected account.

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 sentence with no filler and the action is front-loaded. It is efficient, but it sacrifices potentially useful behavioral context for brevity.

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 tool is simple, has only two parameters, full schema coverage, and an output schema, so a terse description is viable. Still, it lacks guidance on duplicate handling, nested folder behavior, or account selection implications, making it minimally complete rather than fully helpful.

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 100%, and both account_id and mailbox_name already have meaningful descriptions, including an example of hierarchical mailbox naming. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics, so the baseline 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 clearly states the operation (create) and the resource (mailbox/folder), so an agent can tell it is the creation counterpart to imap_delete_mailbox and imap_rename_mailbox. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings beyond the word 'new', so it is clear but minimally differentiated.

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?

No usage context is provided beyond the self-evident purpose of creation. There is no mention of prerequisites, when to prefer this over other mailbox operations, or conditions such as avoiding duplicate mailbox names.

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