delete_mailbox

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

The description goes beyond the destructiveHint annotation by specifying 'ALL its contents' and 'This cannot be undone,' which details the full scope of destruction. It also advises verification, adding practical behavioral context not present in the annotations. No contradiction exists.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with a prominent warning emoji, and delivers maximum information with zero wasted words. It efficiently conveys irreversibility, scope, and a verification step.

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 simple 2-parameter destructive operation, the description is complete: it covers the action, irreversibility, scope, and prerequisite verification. Annotations cover the safety profile, and the schema covers parameters. No output schema is needed, and no critical information is missing.

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 both parameters already well-described in the schema (e.g., path explains 'all emails inside will be lost'). The description itself adds no additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies as the schema carries the burden.

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 specific action: 'Permanently delete a mailbox and ALL its contents.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_email and delete_label, which operate on different resources. The verb 'delete' plus resource 'mailbox' is unambiguous.

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 provides a concrete safety guideline: 'Use list_mailboxes to verify the folder path.' This tells the agent when and how to prepare for using the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the destructive nature makes the usage context clear.

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