In den Papierkorb

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

The description explicitly discloses that the tool never permanently deletes messages and that permanent removal requires emptying the trash in the mail program. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the openWorldHint annotation, clarifying the non-destructive nature of the 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?

The description is two concise sentences with no wasted words. The core action is front-loaded, and the important caveat about permanent deletion follows immediately. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple move-to-trash tool, the description plus schema is mostly sufficient: it identifies the action, the target folder, and the non-destructive behavior. It could benefit from mentioning the alternative mail_move for other destinations, but this is not critical for correct invocation.

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 description adds no parameter-level meaning. The schema covers account and mailbox with descriptions, but the required 'uids' parameter is undocumented in both the schema and the description. With schema description coverage at 67%, the description should compensate for the missing uids explanation but does not.

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 action and resource: 'Verschiebt Nachrichten in den Papierkorb' (moves messages to trash). This clearly distinguishes it from the generic sibling mail_move by targeting the trash folder specifically, and the title reinforces the purpose.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like mail_move. It does not mention that mail_move should be used for moving to other folders, nor does it state any exclusions. The only additional note about permanent deletion is behavioral, not usage guidance.

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