Delete an address

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description goes further by disclosing the concrete consequences: the address stops receiving, cannot be restored, and used quota is not returned. These are operational facts an agent cannot derive from the annotation flags alone.

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, with the irreversible consequence and the quota caveat front-loaded before the usage condition. No filler or restated name/title content.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with a full annotation set and an output schema, the description covers what the agent most needs: irreversibility, loss of receiving capability, and quota non-return. 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 the schema already explains that 'email' is the address returned by create_mailbox or list_mailboxes. The description adds no format, casing, or lookup guidance beyond that, 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 ('Delete') and resource ('an address'), with the scope qualifier 'for good' clarifying it is permanent. No sibling tool performs deletion, so it is unambiguous within the toolset.

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?

Gives an explicit invocation condition: 'Only call this when the user's task no longer needs the address.' That is real when-to-use guidance rather than implied usage. It does not name alternatives, but no sibling offers a non-destructive substitute, so there is little to route against.

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