Inboxes: Remove an Agent from Inbox

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so credit here comes from added context: the explicit DELETE endpoint, the required auth header, and the 'permanently deletes' note telling the agent what the operation destroys. Idempotency and any membership side effects are not discussed.

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 action is front-loaded, which is good, but the definition pads itself with boilerplate. The Persian/Arabic-Indic digit note is largely irrelevant to a tool that only takes IDs, and the field list duplicates the schema.

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 membership-removal tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers action, endpoint, auth, required fields, and destruction semantics. Only the absence of alternative-routing guidance and idempotency context leaves 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents inbox_id, user_ids, account_id and extra_body. The description restates the required body fields but adds no format, digit-handling, or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 correct.

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+resource ('Remove agents from an inbox') and reinforces it with the HTTP verb and endpoint. It is distinguishable from add/update/list inbox-agent siblings by wording and name, though the text never names the alternatives explicitly.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing is provided. The description supplies auth and body-field requirements but leaves the agent to infer that this is the inverse of add_inbox_agents/update_inbox_agents.

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