burn_inbox

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It clearly discloses the destructive action (delete every message) and the preserved state (the address remains registered). It does not discuss reversibility or return values, but the key behavior is explicit.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded. The core destructive action appears first, followed by the retention side-effect and usage timing. Every sentence adds value with no unnecessary padding.

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 tool with one required parameter, no output schema, and no nested structures, the description covers the essential facts: what is deleted, what is kept, and when it should be used. An agent has enough to invoke this correctly.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description only refers to 'the address' without formally explaining its format or origin. However, since the parameter is named 'address' and the text says it is the address already used in previous scenarios, the meaning is reasonably inferable for a single-parameter tool.

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 what the tool does: 'Delete every message in an inbox but KEEP the address.' This is a specific verb and resource, and the emphasis on keeping the address distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_message and delete_inbox.

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 explicitly says 'Use between scenarios', giving the agent a clear condition for when to invoke this tool. It does not explicitly name the alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the use case is clear enough from the scenario lifecycle context.

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