Delete messages from your mailbox, moving them to Trash for recovery, or permanently erase with confirmation.
Delete messages. By default they move to Trash and can be recovered. permanent=True erases them, and that path previews first: call once to get a confirmation_token, then again with commit=True and that token.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uid | No | ||
| uids | No | ||
| commit | No | ||
| folder | No | INBOX | |
| account | No | ||
| permanent | No | ||
| confirmation_token | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that deletion is recoverable by default, that permanent deletion erases messages, and that the permanent path requires a two-step confirmation using confirmation_token and commit=True. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context an agent needs for a destructive tool.
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?
Three compact sentences front-load the main operation and then expand on the two deletion modes without wasted wording. The two-step confirmation flow is explained tersely but completely.
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 description is behaviorally strong but not fully complete for a 7-parameter tool with no output schema. It leaves several invocation details to inference, especially how to specify which messages to delete and whether account/folder values need to be considered.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains permanent, commit, and confirmation_token, which are the least obvious parameters. However, it does not clarify the relationship or selection between uid and uids, nor the role of folder and account beyond their schema defaults.
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 clear verb and resource ('Delete messages') and adds important scope by explaining the default Trash behavior and the permanent-delete path. It distinguishes deletion from sibling operations like move_messages, though it does not explicitly name a sibling for comparison.
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 implies that this tool is used when messages need to be removed, and it explains the soft-delete versus permanent-delete workflows. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as move_messages, nor does it describe any preconditions or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.