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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds real context on top: the removed entry is honored 'from the next read on', previously erased content 'does not come back' (irreversibility of the side effect), and the caller must be a signed-in admin or owner. This is exactly the behavioral depth beyond structured fields that earns credit.

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?

Two compact sentences with the action front-loaded and no filler. The colon-chained clauses ('...or the entry itself: Tommo reads...') are slightly dense but every clause carries information.

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 2-param, no-output-schema mutation tool with annotations covering the safety profile, the description covers effect, irreversibility, selector sourcing, and auth. It stops short of stating what the tool returns or what happens if the entry is not present.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does: id comes from read_the_mail_tommo_wont_read, while entry is the address/domain itself. It does not specify format expectations for 'entry' or how the two interact when both are supplied, leaving a small gap.

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 (take ... off) and resource (the mail Tommo won't read), and clarifies the two selectors (id or entry). It names the sibling read_the_mail_tommo_wont_read as the id source, so an agent can distinguish it from add_to_the_mail_tommo_wont_read and read_the_mail_tommo_wont_read.

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 context: obtain the id from read_the_mail_tommo_wont_read, or pass the entry directly. It also gates usage on being a signed-in admin or owner. No explicit when-not-to-use or excluded alternatives beyond the implied inverse of the add tool.

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