Delimit Inbox Daemon

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

The description clearly discloses mutation semantics: action 'start'/'stop' mutate daemon process state. It adds rich context beyond annotations by describing polling frequency, classification behavior, draft approval handling, auto-posting being disabled, and the gateway-only 'not_available' payload behavior. This does not contradict the readOnlyHint=false or destructiveHint=false 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 sections: what it does, when to use, when not to use, sibling contrast, and side effects. Every section adds distinct value, and the most decision-critical information is front-loaded.

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 fully orients an agent for a one-parameter control tool: session-start ritual usage, daemon behavior, side effects, integration constraints, and graceful degradation in the npm bundle. An output schema exists, so return-value details are not required here.

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% and the schema already documents the single 'action' parameter. The description adds operational meaning beyond the schema by specifying that start/stop mutate daemon state and status is the default inspection mode, reinforcing how the parameter values behave.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Control the inbox polling daemon for email governance (Pro).' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by noting that delimit_notify_inbox reads while this tool controls the daemon process that fills the inbox.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('at session start... to ensure the daemon is up; or to stop/inspect it') and when-not-to-use guidance with named alternatives ('use delimit_notify_inbox' or 'delimit_notify'). It also provides a sibling contrast, leaving no ambiguity about role boundaries.

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