bulk_delete_messages

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the default side effect (marks read first), the all-or-nothing refusal semantics ('deletes nothing if any message is from a protected sender'), the override flag, and a real limitation (senders unknown for unlisted refs). That is non-obvious, decision-critical behavior an agent cannot infer from the schema.

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?

Roughly three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and destination, then the refusal rule and the data-availability caveat. No filler; every clause adds information.

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?

Covers action, defaults, failure mode, and override for a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema. It omits what the call returns (counts, per-id results) and how unknown or malformed ids are handled, but the agent has enough to 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and does: message_ids accepts 'refs or raw ids', mark_as_read defaults true with the False case explained, and allow_protected is tied to the protected-sender refusal. All three parameters get meaning beyond their bare type and default.

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?

States a specific verb and resource with scope: 'Move many messages (refs or raw ids) to Deleted Items in one call.' The bulk framing plus the destination folder distinguishes it implicitly from the singular delete_message and from bulk_move_messages, which targets arbitrary folders.

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?

Gives an explicit conditional path: if the call refuses due to a protected sender, 're-call with allow_protected=True to override.' It does not explicitly route the agent to delete_message for single messages or bulk_move_messages for other folders, so it falls short of full when/when-not coverage.

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