Remove Inbox

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description goes well beyond them by disclosing cascade behavior (all threads are deleted), irreversibility, and a required human-confirmation gate. These are consequential traits not derivable from the structured fields, and they are consistent with the annotations.

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 its blast radius, and each sentence is on-topic. It is slightly repetitive: the double-check requirement is stated twice ('you MUST double-check' and 'You may only use this tool if the user explicitly confirms'), which could be compressed into one sentence.

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 everything needed: how to obtain the identifier, the cascade deletion of threads, irreversibility, and the confirmation prerequisite. Nothing material is left for the agent to infer.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds operational meaning beyond the schema by explaining when to pass an email address directly versus resolving an ID via list-inboxes, which helps the agent pick the correct value form. It does not, however, add format or validation detail beyond what the schema already states.

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 (Remove) and resource (inbox) plus the accepted identifier forms (ID or email). It is trivially distinguishable from siblings such as remove-inbox-thread, remove-inbox-label, and remove-inbox-draft, and even calls out that it deletes all threads.

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 explicit routing: if the user names the address, pass it directly; otherwise use list-inboxes to resolve the ID. It also specifies a mandatory pre-call workflow (double-check with the user, reference the email address, require explicit confirmation), which is exactly the when/when-not guidance an agent needs for a destructive tool.

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