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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the destructive nature is known. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: immediate deletion of all events, receive URL stops working, no coin refund, and usage ledger remains. This is strong behavioral disclosure for a destructive operation.

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?

Three short sentences, each carrying distinct information: the action, the consequence, and the financial/ledger impact. No fluff, front-loaded with the core action.

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 destructive tool with two simple parameters and an output schema, the description covers the key consequences an agent needs to know before invoking. It doesn't mention how to get inbox_id or what the output contains, but the output schema exists and the sibling list_callback_inboxes implies the discovery path. Minor gap: no explicit warning about irreversibility beyond 'immediately'.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'owned inbox' and 'receive URL' but doesn't explain what api_key and inbox_id mean or how to obtain them. The description adds some context (ownership requirement) but leaves parameter semantics mostly to the schema, which only provides names and types.

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 clearly states the action (delete), the resource (owned inbox), and the immediate effect (all its events deleted, receive URL stops working). It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_callback_inboxes and read_callback_events by focusing on deletion.

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 implies when to use it: when you want to permanently remove an inbox and its events. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the destructive semantics and immediate effects are clear enough for an agent to decide. It could be improved by stating 'use list_callback_inboxes to find inbox_id first'.

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