Delete a mailbox

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly warns that the operation deletes the mailbox and everything in it, and it mentions the quota effect. It does not discuss irreversibility explicitly, but 'delete everything' strongly implies permanent destruction.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the action and scope, then adds relevant usage context. Every phrase earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 simple one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does, what it destroys, when to use it, and why it is optional. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether to call it is missing.

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%, and the schema already explains that mailboxId is 'Mailbox id from create_mailbox'. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('Delete'), the resource ('the mailbox'), and the full scope ('and everything in it'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_mailbox, wait_for_code, list_messages, and read_message.

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 explicitly says when to use it ('once you are done'), and provides the alternative of doing nothing because mailboxes expire in 24 hours. It also gives a reason to use it anyway ('polite and it frees your quota'), making the decision context clear.

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