Permanently removes a Naver Mail user label, which acts as a folder; confirm with the user first because deleting it also deletes the messages inside.
Deletes a user label. WARNING: in Naver Mail a label is a folder, so the messages inside it are deleted too. Confirm with the user first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| labelId | Yes | User label id from list_labels. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds the thing annotations cannot convey: the blast radius. It explains that deleting a label cascades to the messages inside it, which is the single most important behavioral fact for this tool and directly changes how an agent should behave.
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?
Three short sentences, zero filler, and the destructive warning is placed immediately after the purpose statement so it is read before any parameter detail. Nothing repeats the schema or annotations verbatim.
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?
Covers the critical gap (cascading deletion of contained messages) for a destructive, non-open-world, idempotent tool whose parameter is fully documented. It stops short of saying whether the deletion is reversible or what happens to messages that are also in other labels, which would complete the picture for a high-stakes mutation.
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 one parameter at 100% schema coverage and the schema already pointing at list_labels as the id source, the description adds no further semantics such as format or validation rules. Baseline 3 applies since the schema fully carries this 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Deletes a user label') that cleanly separates it from sibling create_label/update_label/list_labels. It also disambiguates the domain term by noting that a label is actually a folder in Naver Mail, which an agent could not infer from the name alone.
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 precondition ('Confirm with the user first'), which is actionable guidance for a destructive operation. It does not name a safer alternative sibling (e.g. unlabel_message/unlabel_thread to remove the label from messages without deleting them), so the routing guidance is strong but not complete.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.