delete_emails

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations: it discloses the deletion method ('UID EXPUNGE'), the possibility of partial or ambiguous effects, the per-ID succeeded/failed/unknown status reporting, and that operations are not retried automatically. This is exactly the kind of nuance an agent needs to handle a destructive, non-idempotent operation correctly.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and method, followed by a concise caveat about partial failures and non-retry. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant or filler content.

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 covers the essential context for a destructive tool: what it deletes, how it deletes (UID EXPUNGE), the prerequisite for obtaining email IDs, and the failure semantics. An output schema exists, so detailed return-value documentation is not needed. The description is complete and self-sufficient for an agent to use the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are already well-documented in the schema. The description's reference to 'email_id' aligns with the email_ids parameter, and 'Use list_emails_metadata first' matches the schema note, but it adds little new meaning beyond what the structured schema provides. Thus the 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Delete one or more emails by email_id using target-scoped UID EXPUNGE.' This clearly states the operation and distinguishes it from sibling tools like move_emails and archive_emails. It also includes a prerequisite ('Use list_emails_metadata first') that reinforces the tool's specific role.

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 a clear usage prerequisite: 'Use list_emails_metadata first.' This tells the agent when it is appropriate to call this tool (after listing metadata). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it with alternatives such as moving or archiving, which prevents a 5.

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