delete_inbox

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint and openWorldHint, and the description partly restates them in parentheses (no credit). It does add genuine context beyond the annotations: the deletion is irreversible and destroys all stored messages, not just the inbox record, and it makes exactly one network call to the mailsocket API. It still omits behavior on a nonexistent/already-deleted id.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and scope in the first sentence, then usage, then side effects. Slightly wasteful in the trailing parenthetical citations of annotation names, which restate structured data rather than informing the agent.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates with the destructive/irreversible warning and the single-call network note. For a one-parameter destructive tool this is nearly sufficient; only edge-case behavior (id not found, permissions) is unaddressed.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden for inbox_id. It conveys that the parameter identifies the inbox to destroy and that its contents go with it, but says nothing about format or where the id comes from (e.g. returned by create_inbox). Minimal but non-zero semantic value.

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 ('Delete inbox_id and everything in it') and immediately bounds the scope to the inbox plus its contents. It is trivially distinguishable from siblings like create_inbox, list_inboxes, and get_latest, which all operate on inboxes without destroying 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?

Gives clear when-to-use context with a concrete scenario: 'cleanup once a signup/login flow has finished... e.g. at the end of an automated test run.' It does not name alternatives (e.g. list_inboxes to discover the id first) or state an explicit when-not condition, so it stops short of a 5.

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