mail_forward_delete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the destructive action but does not mention permanence, side effects, what happens if the forward_id is invalid, or any required context. No behavioral detail is added beyond the obvious operation.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is as concise as possible while remaining a complete, understandable statement.

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 one-parameter delete operation, the description states the core action and the parameter is fully covered by the schema. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the agent lacks information about return values, idempotency, or error behavior. The simplicity of the tool prevents a lower score, but gaps remain.

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?

The schema already documents forward_id as a required number with description 'Forward ID', and schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so a baseline of 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?

The description 'Delete a mail forward' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly stating the operation. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like mail_forward_add and mail_alias_delete, leaving no ambiguity about what action it performs.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as choosing between mail_forward_delete and mail_alias_delete, or any prerequisites like the forward needing to exist. The only usage signal comes from the tool name itself.

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