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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses immediate effect, non-deletion, and that an empty mailbox continues receiving and retaining content. It omits permission requirements, idempotency, and error behavior, keeping it below 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?

The description is short and front-loaded, leading with the action and then the consequences. 'Recorded like the other direction' is slightly vague and requires inference, but the overall structure is efficient.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral consequences an agent needs: immediate removal, no deletion, and continued mailbox retention. It could be more complete with permission/audit details, but it is substantially adequate.

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 are already richly documented, including the distinction between the person's sign-in address and the mailbox address. The description itself adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: taking a person off a mailbox. It is distinct from alias and queue operations by the 'person'/'mailbox' framing, but it does not explicitly name the sibling alternative add_mailbox_holder.

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?

It explains what the operation does but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus add_mailbox_holder, remove_mailbox_alias, or remove_queue_operator. The phrase 'like the other direction' only weakly 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.