delete_mailbox

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals two key side effects: Postfix immediately stops accepting mail, and already-delivered mail is not deleted. The explicit confirmation requirement also signals the destructive nature, providing strong transparency beyond the schema.

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 concise and front-loaded, with the core action stated first followed by three impactful behavioral notes. Every sentence earns its place—no filler or redundant restating of the schema fields.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential behavioral aspects: action, immediate effect, limitation, and confirmation requirement. Minor gaps like reversibility or error conditions are not addressed, but the description is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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%, with domain and localPart both clearly documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, but the schema already fully covers semantics, warranting the baseline score.

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 opens with 'Delete a mailbox,' a precise verb+resource statement that clearly identifies the operation. It further distinguishes itself from sibling tools by detailing the immediate effect on Postfix and the scope limitation about already-delivered mail, leaving no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 description provides clear contextual guidance by instructing 'Confirm with the user before calling this,' which is critical for a destructive operation. While it does not explicitly name alternative tools or when-not-to-use conditions, the behavioral notes about stopping mail delivery and preserving delivered mail implicitly define when this tool is appropriate.

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