Manage email folder

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

The description adds an important operational caveat beyond annotations: folder deletion requires confirmed=true and can destroy server-side data. This complements the destructiveHint=true annotation without contradicting it. It could go further by noting effects of unsubscribe or rename, but the key destructive behavior is disclosed.

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 tightly written sentences with no filler. The main action list is front-loaded, and the destructive deletion caveat is placed at the end where it stands out. Every word earns its place.

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?

The description is adequate for understanding the tool's purpose and destructive risk, but it leaves gaps for a multi-action tool with five parameters and no output schema. It fails to map action to parameter requirements (e.g., rename vs newFolder) or describe expected return behavior, so an agent may still need to inspect the schema and experiment.

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 bears the burden of explaining parameters. It only clarifies confirmed=true for delete. It does not explain that rename likely requires newFolder, how accountId and folder relate to each action, or the role of the confirmed flag outside deletion. Agents must infer most parameter semantics from the schema enum and names.

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 names a specific resource ('folder') and a clear set of operations: create, rename, delete, subscribe, or unsubscribe. This unambiguously distinguishes it from message-level tools like mail_move, mail_trash, and mail_delete_permanently.

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 phrase 'Use this to' gives a clear when-to-use context, and the enumerated folder operations define the tool's scope. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the distinction from sibling message-focused tools is strongly implied by the resource being managed.

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