delete_mailbox

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

The description conveys that deletion is destructive and irreversible ('permanently') and indicates the required scope. However, it does not disclose what happens to associated data such as mails, labels, contacts, or signatures, and there are no annotations to fill this gap.

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 short, front-loaded clauses with no filler. The destructive nature and required scope are both communicated efficiently.

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 action, the description covers the operation, permanence, and permission scope. However, with no annotations or output schema, it leaves material gaps around side effects, return values, and irreversibility details beyond the word 'permanently.'

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 0%, and the description adds no information about the 'id' parameter beyond the schema's minimal string type and required flag. For a low-coverage schema, the description should compensate but does not.

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 states a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('a mailbox') with the critical qualifier 'permanently.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like delete_mail and update_mailbox by resource.

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?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_mailbox, update_mailbox, or delete_mail. The 'Scope: mailbox:write' note conveys permission requirements, not usage conditions or exclusions.

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