mail_delete_mailbox

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it states that system mailboxes are protected, deleting a folder does not delete children (so separate steps needed), and the server rejects deletion if emails exist and on_destroy_remove_emails is not True. This is comprehensive transparency.

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 concise and well-structured. It starts with a clear action statement, then lists key caveats in bullet-like fashion, and ends with an 'Args' section. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given no annotations, the description is fully complete for a delete operation with constraints. It covers purpose, usage boundaries, parameter behavior, and prerequisites (remove nested folders). The presence of an output schema is noted, so description does not need to explain return values.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It defines mailbox_id as 'ID of the mailbox to delete' and explains on_destroy_remove_emails: if True, delete all emails; default False causes rejection. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's property names and defaults.

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 'Delete a mailbox (folder or label) by its ID.' It distinguishes from siblings like mail_delete_email and mail_rename_mailbox by specifying the object (mailbox) and noting that system mailboxes cannot be deleted. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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?

The description explicitly tells when to use the tool: to delete a mailbox. It also provides when not to use it: system mailboxes cannot be deleted, and nested folders must be removed first. It explains the on_destroy_remove_emails parameter's role when emails exist. This gives clear guidance on usage and alternatives.

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