Remove Inbox Label

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description goes well beyond them: threads themselves are left alone, no mail is deleted, the operation is irreversible, and it strips the label from every thread. This is exactly the blast-radius detail an agent needs before firing a destructive call.

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?

Purpose and blast radius are front-loaded, then the confirmation protocol. The only weakness is mild redundancy: the double-check requirement is stated twice ('double-check with the user' and again 'only use this tool if the user explicitly confirms ... after you double-check'). Justifiable for a destructive operation, but it is still repeated text.

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 2-parameter destructive tool with no output schema and no nested objects, everything needed to call it safely is present: scope, irreversibility, upstream ID source, and the confirmation gate. 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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters are already documented there (including the inboxId email-address form). The description only repeats the list-inbox-labels hint that the labelId schema field already carries, so it adds no meaning beyond structured data. 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 a label by ID from a Resend inbox') and immediately scopes it against the very similar sibling remove-inbox-thread-label by clarifying it 'takes the label off every thread that carries it.' An agent can distinguish the inbox-wide removal from the per-thread removal without opening either schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use with hard prerequisites: confirm with the user first, reference the label NAME, warn about irreversibility, and only proceed after explicit confirmation. It also routes to list-inbox-labels for obtaining the required ID, so the agent knows both the gating condition and the upstream step.

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