Delete an email

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true. Description adds that trash mode is reversible and permanent is irreversible, which is beyond annotations. No contradictions. Could mention more about side effects (e.g., attachments), but sufficient.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action, then explains modes. No unnecessary words. Highly efficient.

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 core deletion behavior and mode distinction. But lacks context on mailbox parameter (defaults to INBOX), and does not mention authentication or response. Given no output schema, more detail on return value would help. Still, adequate for a simple delete tool.

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 low (25%). Description explains the 'mode' parameter's two values and default behavior, adding meaning. However, it does not describe 'uid', 'mailbox', or 'trash_path' beyond what schema provides. Partial compensation.

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?

Clearly states 'Deletes a message' with specific verb and resource. Distinguishes two deletion modes (trash vs permanent), which differentiates from any implicit alternative. No ambiguity.

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?

Provides guidance on when to use each mode: default is reversible trash, permanent is irreversible. However, does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over other actions (e.g., moving to trash via move). Still, the two modes are well-explained.

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