voidmail_create_account

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, openWorld=true, idempotent=false, destructive=false) by disclosing that agent/owner keys are written to 0600 files and never returned, that the result names only the address and file paths, and that creation needs a local work proof under a rate limit. The no-auto-retry warning is genuinely useful behavioral guidance consistent with idempotentHint=false.

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?

Front-loads the purpose in the first sentence, then layers prerequisites and constraints. It is dense and lengthy, but nearly every clause carries information the caller needs (signing identity, key handling, work proof, rate limit, retry policy).

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by stating the result names only the address and file paths. It covers auth/identity prerequisites, key storage, enrollment path, rate limiting, and retry behavior, making it complete enough for an agent to call this safely.

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 params (name, address) are documented there, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no field-level semantics of its own, though it does clarify what the result returns.

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 and resource: 'Create a new @voidmail.ai inbox.' An agent can tell this creates an inbox/account. However, it never differentiates from the close sibling voidmail_create_alias, leaving the account-vs-alias distinction to inference.

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?

Gives clear operational context: the request is signed by a creator identity (env-configured or local, auto-enrolled via Voidly Home join), requires a local work proof, and is rate limited with an explicit 'never retry an uncertain create automatically' rule. It lacks an explicit when-to-use vs when-to-use-an-alternative statement, so it falls short of 5.

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