imap_delete_by_domain

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the destructive action ('Delete all emails') but omits the critical fact that dryRun defaults to true, meaning the default behavior is only to report what would be deleted, not actually delete. It also doesn't address irreversibility or folder scope. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutation tool.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The action is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a relevant use case. Every word earns its place.

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?

This is a destructive bulk operation with no annotations, no output schema, and a critical dryRun default that affects behavior. The minimal description leaves an agent without key operational context, such as the default dry-run behavior or when to prefer this tool over sibling deletion tools. It needs additional detail to be fully usable.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters, including domain and dryRun. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Delete all emails from a specific domain.' This clearly conveys scope and differentiates it from single-email deletion or spam-folder-specific tools. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, so it doesn't fully distinguish itself from imap_bulk_delete_by_search or imap_bulk_delete.

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 phrase 'Useful for cleaning up unwanted newsletters or spam' gives an implied use case, suggesting when the tool is appropriate. But it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus related alternatives like imap_delete_spam, imap_bulk_delete, or imap_bulk_delete_by_search, and mentions no exclusions.

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