mail_delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, which matches the 'remove' wording. Beyond that the description adds nothing: it does not say whether deletion is irreversible, whether mail data/aliases are purged, or what confirmation is required for a destructive operation.

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?

Very short and front-loaded, which is appropriate, but the Args block essentially duplicates the schema property titles and the whole thing is terse to the point of under-specification.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. However, for a destructive delete with both parameters undocumented in the schema, the description leaves out any consequence or permission context an agent would want.

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%, so the description carries the parameter burden. It clarifies that 'mailbox' is the part before the @, which is genuinely useful, but 'domain' is only labeled 'Домен', adding no real meaning over the schema title. Partial compensation for the coverage gap.

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 single phrase 'Убрать почтовый ящик' names a specific verb (remove) and resource (mailbox), so an agent knows exactly what operation it performs. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like mail_change_password, but the destructive remove semantics against mail_create/mail_list is clear enough.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., mail_clear_domain_mail) and no mention of prerequisites such as the mailbox existing or the deletion being permanent. The description only restates the operation.

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