mail_forward_delete

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered by structured fields. The description adds that a single forward entry is being removed (not the mailbox itself), which is useful, but it says nothing about idempotency, required permissions, or behavior when the address is not present. No contradiction with annotations, though destructiveHint=false versus a removal operation is worth noting.

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?

Front-loaded single-sentence purpose followed by parameter notes; nothing is wasted. The Args block is somewhat redundant with the schema, but it is short.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the annotation set covers the safety profile. What is missing for a three-parameter mutation tool is any statement of preconditions (a forward must already exist), error behavior, or scope of the change — leaving the definition minimally viable rather than complete.

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 it does so only partially: domain and mailbox glosses merely restate the schema titles ('Domain', 'Mailbox'), while 'Email для удаления из пересылки' does clarify what forward_mailbox means. The format of forward_mailbox (full email vs local part) remains unspecified.

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 — removing a forward for a given mailbox address — so an agent can distinguish it from mail_forward_add and mail_forward_list. It does not, however, name those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred from tool names rather than stated.

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 mail_forward_add, mail_forward_list, or mail_change_settings. The agent must infer that this is the removal counterpart to mail_forward_add purely from the name.

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