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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint, readOnlyHint false, idempotentHint, openWorldHint), the description discloses important behavioral details: the deletion is permanent, the mailbox is removed along with the inbox, mail bounces after deletion, and master key access is required. This substantially adds context for safe invocation.

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?

Each sentence earns its place: the first states the action, the second adds an important side effect, the third emphasizes irreversibility, and the fourth states the auth requirement. The most important safety-relevant information is front-loaded and there is no fluff.

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?

This is a high-risk destructive operation with only one parameter, and the description covers what is destroyed, irreversibility, post-deletion behavior, and the auth prerequisite. The output schema exists and the parameter schema is fully documented, so nothing critical is left implicit for correct invocation.

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?

There is only one parameter, `id`, and the schema describes it as 'Unique inbox ID.' The description does not add extra parameter-level semantics, but because schema coverage is 100%, the missing description-level parameter detail is not a deficiency beyond the established 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 action ('permanently delete') on a specific resource ('inbox and its mailbox'), which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like inbox_get, inbox_update, and inbox_create. It also adds concrete behavioral scope, so an agent knows exactly what resource is affected.

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 contextual guidance by stating that the operation is permanent, affects the mailbox, and requires master key access. It does not explicitly name when-not-to-use or alternatives, but deletion is a distinct action with no close functional substitute among the siblings, so the implied usage is clear and adequately supported.

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