email_vacation_delete

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

No annotations are available, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It states that the action deletes a vacation message, which implies destructive behavior, but it does not explain consequences, reversibility, permission requirements, or the role of the confirm parameter. This is too thin for a deletion operation.

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 very short and front-loaded with the core action, followed by an Args list. There is no filler or unnecessary detail. However, it is so minimal that some necessary semantics are missing, though that is more a completeness issue than a conciseness issue.

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 0% schema description coverage, this description is not complete enough. It fails to explain the confirm flag's purpose, whether deletion is permanent, or how domain and user combine to identify the target vacation message. An agent would likely need to inspect external documentation or guess.

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 the lack of parameter documentation. It labels domain as 'Domain' and user as 'Local part,' adding a little clarity about the email address structure, but the confirm parameter is only described as 'Required' while the schema marks it optional with a default of false. The description does not explain what confirm actually does.

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 a vacation message.' It distinguishes this tool from its email_vacation siblings by the delete action, so an agent can understand what it does. Even though the description is brief, the purpose 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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like email_vacation_set or email_vacation_get. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the operation name.

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