Change mailbox password

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds no behavioral context beyond restating the operation, such as whether active sessions are invalidated, whether the change is immediately effective, or how the mailbox is affected.

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 focused sentence with no wasted words and places the action first. It is concise and easy to parse, though it is so minimal that it does little more than mirror the tool's title.

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 simple two-parameter mutation, the schema plus annotations cover the core input and safety expectations. The description is complete enough to identify the intended operation, but it omits behavioral consequences and any retrieval guidance for mailboxId, which would strengthen an agent's confidence.

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%: the password parameter already has a detailed policy, and mailboxId is described as 'Mailbox resource ID'. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, 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 names the specific verb ('Change') and resource ('the password of a mailbox'), which is clear and unambiguous. However, it is essentially a restatement of the title and does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling mail tools, even though no sibling offers the same operation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It is inferable from the operation name, but the description itself provides no explicit usage direction.

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