delete_inbox

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly warns that the operation is irreversible and that all messages in the inbox are destroyed. It does not address edge cases like nonexistent addresses or permission requirements, but the core behavioral impact is well stated.

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 tightly written sentences. Every clause adds value: what is deleted, the scope, the addressing mechanism, and irreversibility. No filler or redundant information.

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 one-parameter destructive tool, the description is adequate: it names the target, defines the consequence, and warns about irreversibility. It could mention what happens when the inbox does not exist or whether this is the only way to permanently destroy an inbox, but nothing essential 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?

The schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensates. The phrase 'by address' gives useful meaning to the address parameter and indicates the inbox identifier, but it does not describe the expected format of the address or how to handle invalid values.

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?

States the specific verb 'delete', the resource 'an inbox and all its messages', and the identifying key 'by address'. This clearly distinguishes it from related tools like delete_message or create_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?

The scope of the operation is clear: deleting an inbox and everything it contains. However, it does not explicitly tell the agent when to choose this over delete_message or burn_inbox, nor does it state any conditions or exclusions.

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