delete_mailbox

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

With no annotations provided, the description alone must convey the destructive nature and error behavior. It does so thoroughly: confirmation always required, default refusal of non-empty mailboxes, precise error_type values for missing credentials and Gmail path restrictions. This is exemplary disclosure of side effects and edge-case behavior.

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 longer than typical but every sentence serves a purpose: technical rationale, prerequisite, safety behavior, and special-case rejection. It is logically organized into paragraphs with the core purpose first. Slightly more verbose than necessary but well-structured and free of filler.

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 tool's complexity (destructive, requires credentials, special Gmail behavior) and lack of annotations, the description leaves nothing essential uncovered: usage, errors, safety, and constraints are all present. The presence of an output schema means return-value documentation is not required here. Complete for an agent to call 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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions (name, account, delete_messages). The description adds slight nuance to delete_messages by explaining the cascade effect, but this is already implied in the schema's description. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the explanatory load.

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 action on a specific resource ('Delete a mailbox via IMAP') and immediately differentiates from the built-in Mail.app primitive by explaining why IMAP is used. The acronym IMAP and the mention of Mail.app's AppleScript limitation make the tool's scope unmistakable and distinct from sibling message-deletion tools.

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?

Provides explicit preconditions: requires IMAP credentials, returns a specific error when missing. It also states the tool always elicits user confirmation, refuses non-empty mailboxes unless cascade is requested, and lists the unsupported Gmail system-label paths. These are clear 'when and when-not' directives that an agent can act on without guessing.

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