Delete mailbox

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable context beyond these: the mailbox is soft-deleted, restorable for a limited period, then permanently removed. This meaningfully informs an agent's risk assessment, though it omits specifics like the restore window length or effects on dependent resources (aliases, forwarders).

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 concise sentences with zero waste. The core action is front-loaded ('Delete a mailbox') and the critical behavioral nuance follows immediately. Every word earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter tool with annotations covering safety and idempotency, and a fully documented schema, the description is nearly complete. It discloses the essential soft-delete behavior an agent needs before calling. The only gaps are minor: the vague 'limited period' and unspecified side effects on mailbox-associated resources.

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% — the single required param mailboxId is already documented as 'Mailbox resource ID'. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but none is needed since the schema fully carries the burden.

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 ('Delete a mailbox') that precisely identifies the operation. The soft-delete detail further refines what 'delete' means here, distinguishing this from sibling mail tools like mail_createMailboxV1, mail_listMailboxesV1, and especially mail_deleteAliasV1 or mail_deleteForwarderV1.

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?

Usage is implied by the clear purpose — an agent needing to remove a mailbox can infer this is the right tool. The soft-delete note provides decision-relevant context (deletion is not immediately permanent), but no explicit alternatives, prerequisites, or when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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