Deletes Outlook emails by moving them to Deleted Items, where they remain recoverable, and requires confirmation before completing the action.
Exclui emails (vão para Itens Excluídos, recuperáveis). Pede confirmação.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cf | No | código de confirmação devolvido pela 1ª chamada | |
| alvos | Yes | lista de alvos (ids curtos, 'atual', 'ultimo') ou 'lista' = todos da última listagem |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=false, but the description adds the crucial qualifier that deleted emails go to "Itens Excluídos" and are recoverable, plus the fact that a confirmation step exists. That is genuine behavioral context an agent cannot get from the annotation alone, though the response format of the confirmation step is not described.
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?
Two short, front-loaded sentences with zero filler: the action and its reversibility come first, the confirmation requirement second. Nothing is wasted and nothing important is buried.
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?
With only two parameters, full schema coverage, and annotations covering the destructive profile, the description supplies what is missing: reversibility and the confirmation requirement. It stops short of explaining the full two-call handshake or what a batch result looks like, but no output schema exists to carry that either.
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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including the meaning of alvos (short ids, 'atual', 'ultimo', 'lista') and cf (confirmation code from the first call). The description only indirectly alludes to the two-call protocol through "Pede confirmação" and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 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 gives a specific verb and resource in Portuguese ("Exclui emails"), which resolves the ambiguity of the cryptic tool name "rm". It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings such as rd, mv, or cx, so an agent must still infer that this is the email-deletion tool rather than a folder or attachment operation.
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?
"Pede confirmação" implies the two-step confirmation flow and the recoverable nature hints that this is a safe-ish bulk operation, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose rm over alternatives like mv (move) or cx. Usage context is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.