destroy_mailbox

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the destructive nature and failure conditions, but it omits other behavioral traits such as permission requirements, reversibility, or the fate of mailbox contents. The existence of an output schema is noted but not leveraged.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that deliver the core purpose and a critical constraint. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy.

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 destructive tool with a single parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential context (action and failure triggers). It lacks details about prerequisites or side effects, but the tool's simplicity reduces the need for more.

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?

The single parameter 'mailbox_id' is not explained beyond its schema type. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to add context such as format, expected values, or how to obtain the ID. This leaves the agent to guess or rely on external knowledge.

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 the action ('Destroy (delete) a mailbox') and the specific resource. It adds a critical condition ('Fails if the mailbox has children or is a system role'), which helps distinguish it from other tools by clarifying its limitations.

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 implies when to use the tool (when you want to delete a mailbox) and provides a condition that must be met (no children, not a system role). However, it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update_mailbox for deactivation) or when not to use it.

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