ClawAIMail

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 states the tool deletes 'an inbox and all its messages', which implies a destructive, irreversible operation. However, it lacks details on permissions required, error handling (e.g., if the inbox doesn't exist), or confirmation prompts, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core action ('Delete') and resource, making it immediately clear and easy to parse.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover critical aspects like return values (e.g., success confirmation or error messages), side effects beyond deletion, or integration with sibling tools (e.g., verifying inbox existence first). The simplicity of one parameter doesn't offset these gaps.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'inbox_id' parameter documented as 'Inbox ID to delete'. The description doesn't add extra parameter details, but with only one parameter and high schema coverage, the baseline is strong. No compensation is needed for missing information.

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 specific action ('Delete') and resource ('an inbox and all its messages'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'create_inbox' or 'list_inboxes'. It precisely communicates the tool's destructive scope beyond just the inbox itself.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the description implies deletion, it doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., confirming the inbox exists), consequences (e.g., irreversible data loss), or when to prefer other tools like 'account_info' for checking inbox details first.

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