Delete email forwarder

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the concrete effect that mail to the address stops being forwarded, plus an operational requirement (user confirmation) that the annotations do not encode. Return/error behavior is not described, keeping it out of 5 territory.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, with the action stated first and the destructive-confirmation warning last. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with full schema coverage, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, effect, and the safety precondition. The only minor gap is what happens on a non-existent forwarder (the idempotentHint implies success), which the annotation largely addresses.

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 (domain, alias) carry their own descriptions and patterns, so the schema fully documents inputs. The description adds nothing parameter-specific, which matches the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Deletes an email forwarder') and immediately adds the consequence of the action. It is trivially distinguishable from siblings like create_forwarder and list_forwarders, which an agent can select between without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit invocation condition: 'Destructive: confirm with the user before calling.' That is meaningful when-to-use guidance for a destructive operation. It does not name alternatives or state when-not-to-call, so it stops 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.