Delete email account

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

Annotations already carry destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's 'Destructive' label is partly redundant. It still earns credit for disclosing what is actually destroyed (the mailbox plus its stored mail) and for mandating user confirmation, neither of which the annotation block conveys.

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, zero filler. The irreversible/destructive nature is front-loaded before the confirmation instruction, so the highest-severity fact lands first.

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?

With both parameters documented in a 100%-coverage schema, annotations covering the safety profile, and no output schema to explain, the description is sufficient to call correctly. It omits minor operational detail (e.g. what happens to forwarders or aliases bound to the mailbox) but nothing blocking.

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%, so both 'domain' and 'username' are already fully documented, including the 'part before the @' clarification. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a specific verb+resource ('Permanently deletes a mailbox') and clarifies the blast radius ('and the mail stored in it'), which cleanly separates it from the sibling delete_domain. The '(irreversible)' qualifier removes any ambiguity about permanence.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition for invocation: 'Destructive: confirm with the user before calling.' That is a real when-to-use directive, not boilerplate. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions (e.g. preferring suspension), so it falls just below the top band.

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