sieve_add_account

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the default test-before-save behavior with rollback semantics ('nothing is saved if they fail'), the storage location ('shared encrypted store used by every MCP client'), and the credential-safety concern that motivates the CLI alternative.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then the usage steering, then the behavioral guarantee. No filler; each sentence adds a distinct decision-relevant fact.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical gaps: safety of the write (test-first), what happens on failure, and where data lives. Combined with a fully documented schema, an agent has everything needed to call this 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 100%, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters thoroughly, making 3 the baseline. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the test/save interaction ('by default the connection and login are tested first') and the storage model, giving semantic context that no single parameter field conveys.

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?

States a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('ManageSieve account'), and its name/scope clearly distinguishes it from siblings like sieve_update_account or sieve_list_accounts. An agent can tell immediately this is the creation path for a new account.

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?

Explicitly states the preferred alternative (the CLI setup tool) and the precise condition under which this tool should instead be used ('only if the user explicitly provides the details here'). This is a rare case of a description that actively steers away from itself and names the exact scenario for use.

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