Enviar a la papelera

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

Beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation, the description discloses real behavior: default operation is a soft move to trash, it is a no-op if the messages are already in the trash, and permanent expunge only occurs when MAIL_ALLOW_EXPUNGE=true and the target is the trash folder. That conditional gating is genuinely useful and not derivable from annotations.

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 tightly packed sentences with the primary action front-loaded, followed by the idempotency note and the conditional expunge rule. No filler; every sentence carries distinct semantic 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?

For a destructive mutation with no output schema, it covers the soft/hard delete distinction and preconditions but omits what happens when permanent=true while MAIL_ALLOW_EXPUNGE=false (silently ignored? error?), return/response shape, and any indication that move_messages exists as an alternative. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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?

With 67% schema coverage, the schema documents uids and mailbox, but permanent has no schema description. The description compensates by explaining exactly what permanent=true does and under which two conditions it takes effect, adding meaning the schema lacks.

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 — 'Mueve los UID a la papelera' — which usefully clarifies that the tool named delete_messages is actually a soft-delete move, not an irreversible purge. However, it never distinguishes itself from the obvious sibling move_messages, so an agent cannot tell the two apart from the description alone.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as move_messages. The permanent flag precondition is a behavioral detail, not routing guidance, so the agent must infer when this tool is preferred over its siblings.

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