Remove Inbox Thread

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description goes well beyond them: it discloses that the entire thread and every message move to trash, that deletion is scheduled 30 days out, and that the deletion deadline can be cleared via update-inbox-thread. This is exactly the extra context an agent needs before 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?

Front-loaded with the effect and the 30-day window before the confirmation rules, which is the right order. The confirmation requirement is restated three times ('double-check', 'tell the user', 'only use this tool if the user explicitly confirms'), which is mild redundancy but defensible for a destructive tool.

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, yet the description covers the consequences (trash, 30-day deletion, restorability) and the safety workflow fully. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this destructive tool correctly 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 (inboxId, threadId) are documented in the schema, so the schema carries the load. The description adds only 'by ID' with no format, sourcing, or lookup guidance, so the 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 and resource ('Remove a thread by ID from a Resend inbox') with clear scope — a single thread, whole-thread granularity. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like remove-inbox, update-inbox-thread, and remove-inbox-draft without opening any 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?

Explicitly states the precondition (mandatory user double-check referencing the thread SUBJECT, then explicit confirmation), and names the alternative for a non-destructive path: update-inbox-thread with folder "archive". Both when-to-use and the alternative route are given.

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