imap_delete_email

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly warns that the operation is destructive, not easily undone, and server-dependent (moves to Trash or expunges). This is exactly the critical behavioral context an agent needs before invoking a delete 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 compact and front-loaded: the core action and destructive nature appear first, followed by a caution and explicit alternatives. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant filler.

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?

Given the tool's destructive nature, the description fully covers what the tool does, its irreversibility, server-dependent behavior, and clear alternatives. The schema fully documents all four parameters, and no crucial operational detail is missing for an agent to invoke it safely and correctly.

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 has 100% parameter description coverage, documenting uid, folder, accountId, and accountName sufficiently. The description adds that the operation uses 'folder + uid' to target one email, but does not need to restate parameter details already present in the schema. A baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 identifies the action ('Delete ONE email'), the resource ('by folder + uid'), and the scope (single message), which distinguishes it immediately from the bulk-delete siblings. The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous, so an agent can select this tool without opening 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 gives explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: it names imap_bulk_delete and imap_bulk_delete_by_search for many-at-once deletions, and imap_move_email for filing instead of deleting. It also instructs the agent to confirm the user means this specific message, which is directly actionable.

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