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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description's job is to add blast-radius detail, and it does: mail stops immediately while already-received messages are unaffected. It stops short of saying whether the deletion is permanent/reversible or what permissions are needed, so it is useful but not fully complete.

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, front-loaded with the action and target, then the immediate behavioral consequence. No filler, no restatement of the tool name, every clause carries information.

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?

With only two required params, full schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations covering the destructive profile, the description supplies what is missing: the blast radius of the delete. Only the irreversibility/permission dimension is left unaddressed, which is a minor gap for a low-complexity tool.

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 the id parameter fully documented as the inbound address publicId. The description only restates 'by id' and adds no format or constraint details beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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) plus resource (one of the workspace's inbound email addresses) and scope (by id). This cleanly separates it from the sibling create/list tools for the same resource, so an agent can pick it without opening any schemas.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the tool deletes an inbound address the workspace owns. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives (e.g. keeping the address but routing mail elsewhere), which leaves the selection logic to inference among the inbound_addresses siblings.

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