Delete IMAP Auth Profile

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no additional context such as what gets destroyed, whether the action is reversible, permission requirements, or side effects. It provides no value beyond the structured annotations.

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 extremely short (one phrase) and front-loads the purpose. However, it is arguably under-specified for a destructive operation, and the 'Purpose:' label is redundant formatting rather than earning 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?

For a destructive delete tool with no output schema and 100% schema coverage, the description should at least confirm scope (e.g., that deletion is permanent) or mention dependencies. It provides nothing beyond the title, leaving behavioral gaps unaddressed.

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 100% and both parameters (key, domain) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning, so the 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 states a clear verb and resource ('Delete IMAP Auth Profile'), which distinguishes it from siblings like imap_auth.get, imap_auth.list, imap_auth.create, and imap_auth.update. It lacks explicit differentiators from other delete tools (e.g., notification.delete, smtp_auth.delete), but the resource scope is 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no warnings about irreversibility. The description simply restates the purpose without context.

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