delete_message

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly states the two-stage delete flow, the irreversibility of the second call, and that the stored body is permanently removed. It also flags the need for user confirmation, which is essential safety information for a destructive operation.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the first states the action, the second explains the two-stage process, the third adds a safety requirement. It is front-loaded and compact without sacrificing critical nuance.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the staged behavior, the permanent nature, the consequence for the stored body, and the user-confirmation requirement. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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?

The input schema already documents the single required parameter 'id' with its source (list_messages or get_thread) at 100% coverage. The description reinforces the delete lifecycle but doesn't add new parameter-level semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation fully.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource, 'Delete a message', and immediately clarifies the two-stage nature (Trash then permanent delete). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_mailbox or delete_draft, since the target is explicitly a message.

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 provides explicit procedural guidance: first call moves to Trash, second call on an already-trashed message permanently deletes it. It also instructs the agent to confirm with the user before a permanent delete, which is a critical usage rule. While it doesn't name alternatives, the message-scoped behavior is unambiguous and complete for this tool.

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