Remove Inbox

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds context they don't carry: the operation cascades to every thread, is irreversible, and is a single-target (openWorldHint=false) removal by ID. The mandatory human-in-the-loop confirmation is real behavioral guidance beyond structured fields.

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-loads the action and the cascade consequence, which is correct. The confirmation requirement is stated twice ('you MUST double-check' and 'you may only use this tool if the user explicitly confirms'), which is mild redundancy, though defensible as emphasis for a destructive operation.

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 covers everything an agent needs for a destructive single-parameter deletion: the target, the cascade effect, the irreversibility, and the required confirmation step. Nothing material is missing.

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% for the single required inboxId parameter, so the schema already documents it. The description adds only that the target should be confirmed via the inbox's email address rather than its ID, which is workflow guidance rather than additional parameter semantics. Baseline 3 applies.

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 an inbox by ID') and immediately discloses the cascade scope ('also deletes all of the inbox's threads'), which distinguishes it from siblings like remove-inbox-thread and remove-inbox-label.

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?

Explicitly gates invocation on user confirmation and describes the exact confirmation protocol: double-check first, reference the inbox's EMAIL ADDRESS, warn about irreversibility, and only proceed on explicit confirmation. No inference required.

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