delete_inbox

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does reveal one important effect (mail stops being accepted), but it omits other critical traits for a destructive action: whether deletion is irreversible, what happens to existing messages, permission requirements, or whether the inbox ID becomes invalid.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by a meaningful consequence. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

Although the tool is simple, the absence of annotations and an output schema means the description should cover more than the basic delete action. It does not state whether deletion is permanent, what happens to the inbox's messages, or what the operation returns, leaving significant gaps for an agent to safely invoke the tool.

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?

The schema has one required parameter, inbox_id, with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not mention inbox_id at all, nor does it explain how to obtain or format it. This leaves the parameter entirely undefined beyond its name and type.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('an inbox'), distinguishing it from other sibling tools like create_inbox or list_inboxes. The added consequence, 'Mail to its address stops being accepted,' reinforces the operation's effect.

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?

The consequence that mail stops being accepted implies the tool should be used when you no longer want an inbox to receive mail. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to use it versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites, and no exclusion cases.

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