Удаление почтового ящика

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

The description explicitly says the operation is irreversible and all mail will be lost, which directly contradicts the destructiveHint=false annotation. This is a critical inconsistency that undermines the agent's understanding of the tool's side effects.

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 two concise sentences in Russian with no unnecessary words. The key warning about irreversibility is front-loaded and clearly stated.

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?

Though the description warns about data loss, the contradiction with destructiveHint leaves the agent with conflicting signals. It also lacks details about return behavior, preconditions (e.g., empty mailbox), or domain-level side effects, making it incomplete for a destructive operation.

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 schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (domain and mailbox), so the description adds no additional parameter semantics. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since schema coverage is 100%.

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 that the tool permanently deletes a mailbox, using a specific verb ('удаляет') and resource ('почтовый ящик'). It distinguishes itself from other delete-* tools by naming the exact resource type.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_mailbox or batch_create_mailboxes. It only explains the consequence of the action, not the appropriate context.

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