delete_email

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it delivers almost nothing. It does not say the default action moves to Trash rather than deleting permanently, nor whether the operation is reversible or requires special permissions — the only signal on that comes from the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of waste, but for a destructive, multi-parameter tool with no annotations it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise. The brevity leaves useful context unstated.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the schema fully documents all three parameters. What remains thin is the description's coverage of the destructive semantics and the absence of any guidance against sibling tools, leaving completeness merely adequate.

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%, and the schema already documents message_id, folder (default 'INBOX'), and permanent (trash vs. expunge) thoroughly. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Delete an email message'), so the agent knows exactly what operation this performs. However, it offers no differentiation from siblings like move_email, which can also remove a message from a folder, leaving the agent to infer the distinction.

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 guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as move_email, nor any mention of prerequisites or the trash-vs-permanent decision at the usage level. The agent must derive the workflow entirely from the schema.

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