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

Matches annotations (idempotent, destructive) and adds detail beyond them: specifies what gets deleted (message and attachment content), notes it works on an already-terminal lease, and clarifies transport-level authentication. No contradiction.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by an auth note. No redundant phrases; every word earns its place.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, idempotency, destructive scope, and auth. The only gap is parameter semantics, but that is minor given the simple interface.

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 compensate. It only vaguely references 'one inbox lease' without explaining inbox_id format, meaning, or relationship to the bearer. The pattern in the schema is the only hint, leaving the parameter under-explained.

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 ('stop', 'delete') and resource ('inbox lease') with clear scope: 'stop inbound visibility and delete retained message and attachment content.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like read/status/attachment by focusing on deletion.

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?

Provides context that this is for deletion, mentions idempotency, and gives explicit auth guidance ('Supply the lease bearer on the HTTP or MCP transport; never place it in tool arguments'). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose makes the use case clear.

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