remove_mailboxes

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

Beyond the annotations' destructiveHint, the description explains the irreversible nature, immediate release but no mid-cycle credit, and that the lower price takes effect next renewal. It explicitly states the return values: releasedCount and quote.

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 relatively concise and front-loaded with the main action, but the parenthetical about alternatives and the return values could be separated for better scanning. Still, it is effective.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains what is returned. It covers prerequisites (acknowledgment), side effects (no partial credit), billing impact, and alternatives. Completeness is high for a downgrade tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully explains both parameters: 'count' is the number of mailboxes to release (1-60), and 'acknowledged' must be true as irreversible consent. It adds billing context not in the schema.

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 clearly states it is a downgrade tool to release N newest live mailboxes and lower billed quantity. It distinguishes from the sibling 'setup_infrastructure' and 'configure_byo_domain' tools which are for adding mailboxes.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use (to lower billing) and contrasts with adding mailboxes via sibling tools. It also provides constraints like minimum 5 mailboxes / $99 and that no mid-cycle credit is given, and requires the 'acknowledged' consent.

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