email_forwarder_delete

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

No annotations are present, so the description alone must disclose that this is a destructive operation. It says 'Delete' but gives no information about irreversibility, impact on mail routing, or whether confirmation prevents actual deletion. The 'confirm: Required' hint is present but its behavioral meaning is not elaborated.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action. The Args list is minimal and adds useful glosses without fluff. It is appropriately sized for a simple delete operation, though it could have included more behavioral context without becoming inflated.

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 tool with no annotations and four parameters, this description is too thin. It does not explain when to use it, how confirmation works, side effects on email delivery, or what happens after deletion. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but critical operational context is missing.

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 carry parameter meaning. It adds 'Local part' for user, 'Owning user' for impersonate, and 'Required' for confirm, which is valuable beyond the raw schema. However, it remains terse and does not clarify the confirm parameter's type, default false value, or behavior relative to the schema.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Delete a forwarder.' This clearly identifies the operation as a deletion of a forwarder, and the sibling tools email_forwarder_create and email_forwarders_list make the contrast obvious. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from those siblings in the text, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool instead of email_forwarder_create or email_forwarders_list. The description simply says 'Delete a forwarder.' There is no mention of prerequisites, warnings, or conditions under which deletion is appropriate.

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