delete_catch_all_address

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only states the deletion action and does not mention whether the operation is irreversible, what side effects it has on email routing or existing messages, or whether special permissions are required. This is insufficient for a destructive tool.

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 very brief and front-loaded, containing no filler. However, it is too minimal to serve as an adequate tool description, bordering on under-specification rather than elegant conciseness.

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 destructive operation with two required parameters and no annotations, the definition is not complete enough. It does not explain what a catch-all address is, why someone would delete one, what the consequences are, or how the parameters relate to the operation. An agent would struggle to invoke this correctly without external knowledge.

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 does not mention either required parameter. The parameter 'zoid' is particularly non-obvious and is left completely unexplained, while 'domain_name' is only vaguely inferable. The description provides no help in understanding how to populate the arguments.

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 'Delete catch-all address.' simply restates the tool name with spaces instead of underscores; it is a tautology that adds no new semantic information. It does indicate the verb and resource, but since the name already conveys exactly this, the description does not meaningfully clarify purpose.

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 usage context is provided. The description does not say when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_catch_all_address or delete_notification_address, nor does it mention prerequisites or conditions. Any usage guidance is only implied by the name itself.

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