delete_inbound_email

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for a destructive operation. It does not say whether the deletion is permanent or recoverable, whether prior retrieval via get_inbound_email is advisable, what permissions or scope are required, or what happens to associated routes.

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?

One short sentence with no wasted words, but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than density of useful content. It is front-loaded but has nothing to front-load beyond the obvious verb.

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, no output schema, and many similar delete_* siblings, the description leaves the agent without irreversibility warnings, preconditions, or failure behavior. The structured fields alone do not fill that gap.

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% and the single parameter 'id' is documented as an inbound email UUID, so the description adds nothing beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema fully documents the only parameter.

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 sentence "Delete an inbound email" restates the tool name (delete_inbound_email) with no added distinction from siblings such as delete_inbound_route, delete_dead_letter, or delete_template. The verb and resource are present, but only because the name already carries them.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of the related tools (get_inbound_email, list_inbound_emails, delete_inbound_route) that an agent would need to disambiguate or confirm before deleting. An agent must infer everything from the name.

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