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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by disclosing the concrete post-condition: mail to the address bounces afterwards, making the consequence of destruction explicit. It omits edge behavior (unknown address, undo/recreate), keeping it short of a 5.

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, zero waste, with the action and its consequence front-loaded before any elaboration. Every sentence 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 one-parameter destructive operation with no output schema, the description covers the action and its irreversible effect, which is what an agent most needs. Missing only secondary details such as behavior for a missing address or whether the alias can be recreated.

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% with a single required parameter whose format example ("hello@yourdomain.com") is documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb (Delete) and resource (a forwarding address), and immediately disambiguates the alias resource as the tool's target. An agent can distinguish it from create_alias, list_aliases, delete_dns_record and delete_message by the resource alone.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (e.g., use list_aliases to find the address, or create_alias to re-add one). The condition that selects this tool over siblings is left entirely to inference from the name.

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