Xóa hộp agent

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: it is a SOFT delete and old mail stays readable until retention expires, which tells the agent data is not immediately purged. It still doesn't say whether the delete can be undone or what permissions are required.

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?

Two short clauses, front-loaded with the trigger condition and the key behavioral fact (soft delete). The bilingual duplication is redundant but each version is compact and waste-free.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral consequence (soft delete, retention window). Only the response/confirmation format and any permission requirements are left unstated, which is a minor 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?

There is a single parameter (inbox_id) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about it. The name is largely self-explanatory, but no format, source (from mail_inbox_list?) or constraint guidance is provided, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('soft-delete an inbox') and the Vietnamese clause adds scope ('when the inbox is no longer in use'). It clearly distinguishes itself from mail_inbox_list/get/update by being the deletion operation, though it never names a sibling 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?

'Khi hộp không còn dùng' supplies a thin trigger condition for when to reach for this tool, but there is no guidance on alternatives (e.g. update/disable vs delete) and no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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