imap_delete_spam

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals a destructive action ('delete') but does not disclose whether deletion is permanent or reversible, whether it consults a configured spam-domain list, or what side effects might occur. The dryRun safety parameter is only present in the schema, not reflected in the description.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler or redundancy. The action and target are front-loaded, making it easy to scan, though this conciseness comes at the cost of behavioral detail.

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 five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what qualifies as a 'known' spam domain, how to safely preview deletions, or what happens after processing, leaving an agent without enough context to invoke it safely.

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 all five parameters are already documented with descriptions including dryRun, limit, minConfidence, folder, and accountId. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so a baseline 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 states a specific action ('find and delete emails') and a clear resource scope ('from known spam/disposable email domains'). This distinguishes it from generic imap_delete_email and imap_bulk_delete, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from similar tools like imap_delete_by_domain.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as imap_delete_by_domain, imap_bulk_delete_by_search, or imap_check_spam. The description neither states exclusions nor offers context about prerequisites like configuring the spam domain list.

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