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

Annotations already flag destructive behavior, and the description goes further by specifying the exact side effect ('Does not refund the mint debit') and the authorization model. There is no contradiction with readOnlyHint=false or destructiveHint=true.

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?

Three short sentences, each carrying a distinct piece of information: action, side effect, and permission. No filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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 one-parameter delete-style tool, the description supplies the action, HTTP method, authorization, and financial consequence. The absence of an output schema does not create a critical gap because the behavior and prerequisite are fully stated.

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%, with the single 'id' parameter documented as coming from mint_inbox (inb_…). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so baseline 3 applies.

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 defines a specific verb ('Stop') and resource ('inbox'), and adds the HTTP route 'DELETE /inbox/{id}' to make the operation unambiguous. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like capture_inbox or mint_inbox by focusing on ceasing captures.

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 implies the trigger: use it when captures should no longer be accepted, and clearly states the permission constraint 'Owner only'. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context is clear enough for correct selection.

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