panelica_email_delete_v1_email_forwarders_id

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds value beyond that by specifying the consequence: 'WARNING: destructive — permanently removes the resource.' This informs the agent the operation is irreversible and must be treated with care. The explicit 'Required scopes: email:delete' also discloses an auth prerequisite not present in the schema or 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 compact and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by four terse, high-value lines covering method, category, auth scope, and destructive warning. 'Category: Email' is slightly redundant given the tool name and sibling context, but it is harmless. Overall it is appropriately sized with minimal waste for a five-line description.

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 very simple tool — one parameter, no output schema, no nested objects — the description covers the essentials: what it does, the HTTP contract, the required scope, and the permanent consequence of invocation. The annotations complete the safety profile (idempotent, destructive, non-read-only). Minor gaps such as success/error response behavior are not critical for a single-path-parameter DELETE endpoint.

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% since the single 'id' parameter is documented as 'Path parameter: id'. The description's endpoint line ('/v1/email-forwarders/:id') mildly reinforces that id is a path identifier, but it adds little meaning beyond what the schema already conveys. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the full parameter burden.

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 opens with 'Delete email forwarder', a specific verb plus precise resource type, which distinguishes it from sibling delete tools targeting email accounts (panelica_email_delete_v1_email_accounts_id) and autoresponders (panelica_email_delete_v1_email_autoresponders_id). The resource naming alone disambiguates the operation without needing to open the 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?

The description provides contextual clues — HTTP method, category, and required scopes — that imply when the tool applies, but it never explicitly states when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it name any exclusion conditions. The intended use is inferable ('if you need to delete a forwarder, use this'), but the agent receives no routing guidance for distinguishing it from the other email delete tools.

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