bulk_delete_by_sender

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. 'Delete' implies a destructive, likely irreversible mutation, but the description does not disclose whether the deletion is permanent, whether it spans all mailboxes or only the default INBOX, permissions required, or the existence of a dry-run option. This is a significant gap for a destructive bulk 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. While extremely terse, it is not wasted or redundant; it simply lacks the additional context that the other dimensions penalize. Structurally it is clean and efficient.

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 bulk-delete tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is substantially incomplete. It omits critical behavioral context such as permanence, scope (e.g., mailbox vs. all mailboxes), and confirmation requirements. Schema coverage handles parameters, but the description fails to complete the behavioral picture.

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 three parameters (sender, mailbox, dryRun) are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond what the schema provides—'specific sender' merely restates the sender parameter—so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 and resource: 'Delete all emails from a specific sender.' This clearly identifies both the action (bulk delete) and the filter (sender), distinguishing it from broad deletion tools like delete_email or bulk_delete. However, it does not differentiate from close siblings such as bulk_delete_by_subject or delete_older_than, so it stops short of a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as bulk_delete, bulk_delete_by_subject, delete_email, or delete_older_than. There are no stated prerequisites, exclusions, or context cues to help an agent choose this over other deletion tools.

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