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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds the irreversibility nuance of 'permanently' and targets the archived mailbox specifically, but it does not disclose potential cascading effects, authorization needs, or what happens to associated data.

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, tightly worded sentence with no filler. The key qualifier 'permanently' is front-loaded and adds important meaning without extra length.

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 destructive one-parameter operation with a full input schema and an output schema, the description plus annotations cover the essentials. It could mention what qualifies as an archived mailbox or whether associated attachments are also removed, but no critical selection or invocation information is missing.

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 single parameter mailboxId is already described as 'Archived mailbox ID'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline 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 a specific verb ('delete'), a specific resource ('archived mailbox'), and the qualifier 'permanently' makes the operation clear. It is easily distinguishable from siblings like archived.get, archived.list, and archived.reactivate.

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 such as archived.reactivate or mailboxes.delete. The tool name and namespace imply the context, but the description itself does not state it.

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