Remove Inbox Label

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 crucial scope and irreversibility details: the label is removed from every thread carrying it, threads themselves remain untouched, and the action cannot be undone. It also discloses the required user-confirmation workflow.

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 front-loaded with purpose and effects, then moves to safety requirements. It is slightly verbose because the need for user confirmation is stated in multiple sentences, but the repetition is arguably justified for a destructive action.

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 destructive two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the important behavioral and safety context an agent needs: what is affected, what is not affected, irreversibility, confirmation requirements, and where to find the label ID.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description repeats that the label ID comes from list-inbox-labels, which is also in the schema, and adds no new syntax or format guidance beyond the structured fields.

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 states a specific verb and resource: removing a label by ID from a Resend inbox. It distinguishes the effect from sibling tools by clarifying that threads are not removed and no mail is deleted, which separates it from remove-inbox-thread and remove-inbox.

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?

It gives explicit preconditions: the user must be double-checked, the label name must be referenced, irreversibility must be warned about, and the tool may only be used after explicit confirmation. It also routes to list-inbox-labels for obtaining the label ID.

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