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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states that new mail is dropped and counted, history remains readable, and it never erases data. The rationale (customer data) is included. However, it does not specify whether the operation is reversible (e.g., can an inbox be re-enabled?) or any permission requirements, but these are not critical for selection.

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 concise (three short sentences) and well-structured. It opens with the core action, then emphasizes the non-destructive nature with repetition for clarity. Every sentence serves a purpose, and it extends only slightly to provide important context.

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?

The tool is simple with only two required parameters and no output schema. The description covers the main behavior and its non-destructive aspect, which is the key contextual information. It does not specify what happens after disabling (e.g., return value) but that may be unnecessary given the simplicity.

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%, so both parameters (organization_id and inbox_id) are documented in the schema. The description does not add further meaning beyond what the schema provides; it doesn't explain how to find these IDs or any format details. Per baseline, this is a 3.

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 clearly states the action 'disable an inbox' and the specific behavior: stops accepting mail, drops new mail, and keeps history readable. It distinguishes this from deletion (explicitly says it never erases), making it distinct from other inbox-related tools.

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 explains the effect (drops new mail, keeps history) and implies usage when an inbox should stop receiving mail but maintain access to past messages. It does not explicitly name alternatives like 'inbox_delete' (which doesn't exist in the list, but 'deletion_request' does), but the explicit statement 'it disables, never erases' effectively distinguishes it from any destructive counterpart, providing sufficient guidance.

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