assistantmail_delete_messages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the destructive nature ('Deletes') and the two modes, but it does not warn about irreversibility, whether deleteAll bypasses messageIds, whether messages are hard-deleted or soft-deleted, or any permission requirements. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 action and covers both modes. It earns its place with no filler, though it could add a brief warning without becoming bloated.

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 destructive tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the deleteAll vs messageIds interaction, irreversibility, or what happens after deletion. An agent needs more guidance to invoke this tool safely and correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'by IDs' (messageIds) and 'deletes all messages' (deleteAll), but it does not explain the relationship between deleteAll and messageIds (e.g., which takes precedence, whether both can be set), nor the apiKey parameter. The description adds some meaning but leaves critical parameter semantics unresolved.

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 clear verb ('Deletes') and resource ('messages from a mailbox'), and distinguishes two modes: by IDs or all messages. It is clear enough to differentiate from sibling tools like delete_mailbox, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 implies usage context: use when you need to delete specific messages or clear a mailbox. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over other deletion tools (e.g., delete_mailbox) or mention any prerequisites or safety conditions.

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