Permanently delete email

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

The annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds crucial behavioral context: irreversibility ('This cannot be undone'), the confirmation requirement, and the Trash-folder precondition. This goes well beyond the structural annotation hints and fully warns the agent of the destructive nature.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the critical usage restriction and immediately states irreversibility. Every sentence adds substantive value.

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 two-parameter destructive operation with no output schema, the description covers the essential preconditions, confirmation requirement, and consequences. Combined with the annotations (destructiveHint=true), nothing important is missing for an agent to call this tool 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 for parameter documentation. It indirectly explains the 'confirmed' parameter via 'explicit user confirmation', but it does not describe the 'messageId' parameter. However, the meaning of messageId is largely self-evident from the tool name and email context, so the definition 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?

The description clearly states a specific verb ('delete permanently') and resource (an email message already in the Trash folder). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like mail_trash or mail_move by emphasizing permanent deletion of a message in Trash, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 gives explicit conditions for use: only after explicit user confirmation and only for messages already in the configured Trash folder. It clearly implies when not to use the tool (e.g., messages outside Trash) but does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools, so it falls just short of a 5.

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