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

Adds meaningful behavior beyond the annotations: exactly what is destroyed (retained message and attachment content, inbound visibility), that terminal leases are included, and the non-obvious auth requirement that the bearer goes on the transport. The destructive/idempotent flags themselves are already covered by annotations, and it doesn't discuss irreversibility or throttling.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence in which every clause carries distinct information — scope of deletion, terminal-lease applicability, and auth handling. No filler or repetition of the title.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the destructive/idempotent profile is covered. The main gap is the parameter identifier meaning; otherwise an agent has enough to invoke correctly.

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% for the single parameter inbox_id, so the description must carry that burden. It only says 'one inbox lease' and never explains the inbox_id identifier or its inb_ pattern, leaving parameter meaning essentially undocumented.

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 precise verb and resource: 'stop inbound visibility and delete retained message and attachment content for one inbox lease.' This distinguishes it clearly from siblings like ausca_extend_inbox, ausca_open_inbox, and ausca_agent_inbox_read, which do not destroy content.

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 real usage condition — that the call applies to 'an already-terminal lease' as well as active ones, and that the bearer must be supplied on the HTTP/MCP transport rather than in arguments. It stops short of naming when to prefer an alternative (e.g., extend vs. delete), so it is not a full 5.

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