delete_inbox

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It mentions the 409 conflict response and that audit trail is preserved. It does not mention irreversibility, permission requirements, or side effects, but the provided details are adequate for a simple delete 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?

Two sentences, no fluff. The first sentence states the action and required parameter, the second adds an important behavioral condition. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the simple input schema (2 params, no nested objects) and no output schema, the description covers essential behavior. It could mention irreversibility or permission scopes, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a deletion tool in a CRUD context.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description only adds 'by id' for the id parameter, which is already implied. No additional context for the sender parameter. The description adds marginal value beyond the schema.

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) and resource (receive address/inbox). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_inboxes and create_inbox by specifying deletion by ID, and adds a specific refusal condition (409 if inbox in use).

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 (when you want to delete an inbox) and when it will be refused (inbox has messages). It could explicitly state 'Use when you want to permanently remove an inbox' but the context is clear.

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