delete_messages

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 discloses the key Trash behavior but omits other important traits, such as the permanent parameter being a no-op, that messages are recoverable from Trash, and that providing account and source_mailbox improves performance. These are only partially covered in the schema, not in the description itself.

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 that front-loads the most important behavioral fact (Trash) with zero waste.

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 that the schema thoroughly documents all four parameters and an output schema exists, the description is minimally sufficient. It captures the core deletion semantics, though it could mention the recoverability aspect or performance hints, but these are already covered by parameter descriptions.

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 baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; the main line is about overall behavior, and parameter details are left entirely to the schema, which is comprehensive.

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 verb ('Delete') and resource ('messages') and adds a critical behavioral qualifier ('always moves to the account's Trash mailbox'), which clearly distinguishes it from other deletion tools like delete_rule or delete_mailbox without ambiguity.

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?

It provides a clear context for use by specifying that deletion always results in Trash, which implicitly warns agents not to expect permanent removal. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or conditions for when this tool should not be used, though none directly exist for permanent deletion.

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