delete_mail

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

The description mentions the 'mail:manage' scope, which gives some permission context. However, since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden and does not disclose whether deletion is permanent or reversible, what side effects occur, or whether items are moved to trash.

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 no unnecessary words. However, it is under-specified even for a simple deletion tool, so the brevity is not fully appropriate.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves important context unstated, such as whether deletion is permanent and where the mail id comes from. An agent could invoke it with an id, but the missing behavioral details make it incomplete.

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?

The schema only defines 'id' as a required string with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain what id refers to, where to obtain it, or its expected format; this is only implied by the tool name.

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 clearly states the action ('delete') and the resource ('a mail'), and names the required permission scope. It is distinguishable from siblings like update_mail and delete_mailbox, though it does not explicitly call out that distinction.

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 such as update_mail, delete_mailbox, or moving a mail to trash. The only contextual hint is the permission scope, with no exclusions or alternative conditions.

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