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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds real context beyond that: deletion is immediate, the address stops receiving right away, and the operation is owner-scoped. It stops short of stating irreversibility or the error behavior for an unknown or already-released id.

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 with the destructive action, the resource, the immediate consequence and the ownership scope — no filler.

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 tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the definition is nearly sufficient. The only missing piece is what happens when the id is invalid or already released.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage; the schema already explains the UUID and where to obtain it. The description only echoes 'by id', adding no format or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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 ('release/delete'), the resource ('agent inbox'), the selector ('by id') and the scope ('owner-scoped'). An agent can distinguish it from mAYL_agentbox_provision/list, though no sibling is named explicitly in the text.

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?

'Frees the address immediately so it stops receiving' implies the intent (decommissioning an inbox), but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives guidance — e.g. it does not contrast itself with mAYL_agentbox_extend for keeping the address.

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