imap_remove_account

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 reveals the action ('Remove') but does not state whether removal is permanent, whether it deletes stored credentials, or what happens to existing connections or dependent operations.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and easy to scan, though it sacrifices context that could have been included without bloating the text.

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 low complexity (one required parameter) and the explicit name/action, the description is minimally viable. However, because this is a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, an agent would benefit from a note about permanence or side effects, which is absent.

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%: the input schema already explains accountId as 'ID of the account to remove'. The tool description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Remove') and a clear resource ('IMAP account configuration'), making the operation unambiguous. Despite the description mirroring the tool name, it clearly identifies the destructive removal action and is distinct from sibling tools like imap_add_account or imap_update_account.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as imap_disconnect, imap_test_account, or imap_update_account. There is no mention of prerequisites, consequences, or conditions that would select this removal operation over others.

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