delete mail domain

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

The annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description reinforces this by stating 'and all mailboxes', which explains the scope of destruction. It adds the detail that this is a verified command, hinting at safety validation, but it does not go beyond the annotations to describe any other behavioral traits, such as lack of idempotency or open-world assumptions. Since the description does not contradict annotations, a 3 is appropriate.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the critical destructive consequence (deleting all mailboxes). It is to the point and easy to parse, though adding a brief note on when to use it could have increased value without much bulk.

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?

The description conveys the key effect (delete domain and mailboxes) and mentions the underlying command, which is sufficient for a straightforward deletion tool. Given the presence of an output schema, return values are presumably documented elsewhere. However, it lacks guidance on required user context or the irreversibility of the operation, though annotations cover the destructive hint. Overall, it is adequate but not thorough.

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?

With only 33% schema description coverage, the confirm parameter is described as a confirmation flag, which is useful. However, the description adds no meaning for the 'user' and 'domain' parameters beyond their names, which are self-explanatory. The schema provides basic constraints (patterns, lengths), but the description does not clarify which user or domain space they refer to. Given the low schema coverage, the description should compensate more but falls short.

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 the action ('Delete') and the resource ('a mail domain and all mailboxes'). It also mentions the specific command executed (v-delete-mail-domain), which adds technical clarity. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from the related delete_mail_account, since both involve mail-related deletion, though the focus on domain is clear.

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 description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as delete_mail_account or other delete tools. The purpose is obvious (delete mail domain), but there is no mention of prerequisites, side effects, or when not to use it, relying on the agent to infer from the name and description.

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