delete_mailbox

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true. The description adds critical context: 'Permanently delete... cannot be undone' and 'ALL its contents' are lost. Also suggests verification step. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences only. The first sentence is a clear warning and action statement. The second gives actionable advice. No superfluous words. Front-loaded with critical warning.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers all essential behavioral aspects: permanence, scope (all contents), and a prerequisite step. It adequately prepares the agent for correct and safe invocation among many siblings.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description does not add new meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., path description includes warning about lost emails). Thus meets baseline but no extra value.

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?

Clearly states it permanently deletes a mailbox and all contents. The verb 'delete' and resource 'mailbox' are explicit. Differentiates from siblings like create_mailbox and rename_mailbox by emphasizing destructiveness.

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 a clear prerequisite: 'Use list_mailboxes to verify the folder path.' This guides when to use the tool (after verification). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives for deleting individual emails or other non-destructive actions, which are available among siblings.

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