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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds important behavior: both the mailbox and its stored login are deleted, and the action is irreversible. The explicit instruction to confirm with the user before passing confirm=true provides crucial safety context beyond the 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 two short sentences, front-loading the destructive effect and then the confirmation requirement. Every clause adds useful information without repetition.

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 destructive tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description supplies the essential missing context: irreversibility, login deletion, and the confirm=true requirement. Nothing critical to correct invocation is omitted.

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 50%, with email documented in the schema and confirm left bare. The description compensates by explaining that confirm=true is the required confirmation mechanism, though it does not elaborate on confirm=false behavior or any other parameter nuance.

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: "Remove a mailbox and delete its stored login." It distinguishes the operation from non-destructive mailbox siblings like pause_mailbox or update_mailbox by making removal and login deletion explicit.

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?

It gives a clear precondition for use: ask the user first, then pass confirm=true, and labels the action irreversible. It does not explicitly compare against alternatives such as pause_mailbox or delete_workspace, so it falls short of full alternative guidance.

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