Delete mailbox

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description goes well beyond them: it discloses the cross-parameter invariant, the default-mailbox guard with a remediation path, the irreversibility, and the confirm=true acknowledgement gate. This is the level of behavioral detail an agent needs before a destructive call.

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?

Five tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the consequence ('Permanently delete') and then the preconditions. No filler, no repetition of the name or title.

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 with no output schema, the description covers consequences, prerequisites, alternatives, and acknowledgement requirements. An agent has everything needed to call this correctly and safely.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds the cross-field constraint that exactly one of transfer_aliases_to/delete_aliases is required — an invariant the JSON schema cannot express. That elevates it above the baseline, though it doesn't add format or syntax detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Permanently delete a mailbox') and disambiguates itself from siblings like mailbox_update by naming what it destroys. The word 'Permanently' plus the alias-handling requirement make further reading unnecessary to grasp intent.

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?

Gives explicit when-conditions and alternatives: route aliases via transfer_aliases_to (pointing at mailbox_list) or delete_aliases=true, with exactly one required. It also states the blocking case (default mailbox) and the remedy (mailbox_update with set_default=true), leaving nothing to inference.

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