delete_alias

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation profile is known. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that baseline — the alias stops receiving mail yet remains recoverable via restore_alias — but it omits whether labels, recipients, or settings are preserved and whether the deletion takes effect immediately.

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 tight sentences with zero filler, and the primary effect is front-loaded before the recovery note. Sizing is well matched to a simple single-parameter deletion tool.

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, annotated, single-parameter delete tool the description covers purpose and recoverability, which is most of what an agent needs. Remaining gaps (immediacy of effect, what related data is retained) are minor given the destructive annotation.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents alias_id as a UUID. The description adds no additional meaning about the identifier or any format expectations, which is acceptable given the schema does the work.

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 ("Delete an alias") plus the concrete effect ("stops receiving mail"), which lets an agent understand the operation without opening the schema. It gestures at restore_alias as the inverse, though it does not distinguish itself from other deletion siblings such as forget_alias or delete_recipient.

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 only implied: the mention of restore_alias signals this is a reversible/soft delete, which is a useful selection cue. However, there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over forget_alias or bulk_alias_action, and no prerequisites or warnings about side effects on existing mail flow.

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