delete-mail-rule

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, indicating deletion. The description adds that deletion is permanent, which aligns with the annotation. No contradictions, but the description does not add significant new behavioral details beyond annotations.

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 two sentences: one for core purpose and one tip. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource, with no unnecessary content. Efficient and clear.

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?

The tool has no output schema. The description provides a useful tip about retrieving the folder ID, but does not explain the If-Match or headers parameters. For a simple deletion tool, the completeness is adequate but could include more about prerequisites or side effects.

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?

All 5 parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage). The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so 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 clearly states the action (Delete) and the resource (messageRule object). It includes a helpful tip about using the Inbox folder ID, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like update-mail-rule or create-mail-rule.

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 tip provides context about using list-mail-folders to get the folder ID for inbox rules, but it does not explicitly state when to use or avoid this tool compared to alternatives. The guidelines are present but minimal.

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