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

Beyond the annotations, the description explains what actually happens: mail stops routing, bounces at the webhook, and the address is kept and can be re-enabled unchanged. This aligns with destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true while adding meaningful operational detail.

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 deliver the action, the behavioral consequence, the preserved state, and the permission requirement. Every sentence earns its place and the key action is front-loaded.

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 tool with an output schema and supportive annotations, this description is complete: it states who can use it, what happens to incoming mail, and what happens to the address. No critical decision-making 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 description coverage is 100%, so the single campaignId parameter is already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond tying the action to 'the campaign's address,' which is appropriate given the baseline.

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 and resource: 'Disable the inbox' for a campaign's PBEM inbox. It also clarifies the concrete consequence—mail stops routing and bounces—and the retained address, clearly distinguishing it from enable or regenerate operations.

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 clear context: use this when you want to disable a campaign's PBEM inbox while keeping the address, and it explicitly restricts usage to GMs. It does not explicitly name the sibling enable tool, but 're-enables unchanged' strongly implies the counterpart operation.

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