delete-mail-message

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the tool is known to be destructive. The description adds valuable context: it specifies 'soft delete' and its behavior (moves to Deleted Items), which is beyond annotations. It also explains the confirm gate parameter, revealing that without confirm: true, calls will fail under certain configurations. This is helpful behavioral context not present in annotations.

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 two sentences and a tip, all relevant. It's concise and the tip repeats the first sentence, which is slightly redundant. However, it's not lengthy. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the tip is a quick reminder. No wasted words. It's efficient but could be more concise by removing the repetition.

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?

Given the tool has a destructive operation, annotations indicate destructiveHint true, and there is no output schema. The description covers the soft-delete behavior, the confirm requirement, and the identifier usage is covered in schema. The description is sufficient for an agent to understand how to delete correctly, including the potential need for confirmation. It doesn't cover return values, but that's acceptable without an output schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so all parameters are described in the schema. The description itself adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema descriptions are thorough, including specific guidance on messageId (use 'id' from Graph, not as 'id'). The description's tip doesn't add parameter info. Baseline for 100% coverage is 3, but the description's tip reinforces the soft-delete behavior which is relevant to the confirm parameter. This slightly elevates it.

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 ('Delete'), resource ('Outlook email message'), and identifies the key identifier ('message ID'). It distinguishes itself from other delete operations in the sibling list (e.g., delete-calendar, delete-todo-task). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast it with related mail operations like move-mail-message or delete-mail-folder, but the purpose 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 clearly notes this is a 'soft delete' and states the consequence ('moves to Deleted Items'). It also provides a behavioral tip about permanent deletion. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives, but given the sibling list, the purpose is unambiguous enough. It doesn't mention exclusions or alternatives, but the context of deleting a specific message is clear.

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