update_mailbox

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

Annotations indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and destructiveness (destructiveHint=true). The description adds details: IMAP credentials required for moves, error types like 'imap_required' and 'unsupported_gmail_system_label', and the AppleScript vs IMAP distinction. This enriches the behavioral model 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 bullet points and clear separation of modes. It is slightly long but each sentence adds necessary context. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. Could be slightly more concise, but overall efficient.

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 the complexity of two operational modes, prerequisites, error conditions, and Gmail-specific restrictions. With an output schema existing (as per context), it does not need to detail return values. All critical aspects are addressed.

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%, but the description adds significant meaning: explains the two operational modes, the conditions for new_name and new_parent (at least one required), and special cases like empty string for new_parent. This greatly aids parameter understanding.

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 'Rename and/or re-parent (move) an existing mailbox,' using specific verbs and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like create_mailbox and delete_mailbox by focusing on modification operations.

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?

The description outlines two delivery paths (rename-only vs move) with distinct mechanisms (AppleScript, IMAP RENAME) and prerequisites (IMAP credentials). It also notes when Gmail system labels are unsupported, providing context for when not to use. It could explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like create_mailbox, but that is implied.

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