mail_manage_folder

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description's value-add is the specifics: delete 'permanently removes the folder and its contents' and needs explicit user instruction. That is meaningful disclosure beyond the annotations. It does not address idempotency behavior for rename/create or error conditions.

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 with the action list, followed by the highest-risk behavior (permanent delete) and then the path format hint. Every sentence carries information, though the trailing 'Pass full server folder paths' is slightly abrupt and could be tied more explicitly to the folder/newPath parameters.

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?

A multi-action mutation tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema needs to explain how newPath relates to each action and what happens on failure. The description covers the destructive delete case well but leaves the rename/create parameter contract and error behavior undocumented.

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% across four parameters, so the description carries the burden. It clarifies only the 'folder' parameter (full server folder paths) and never mentions newPath — the parameter that distinguishes rename/create from delete — nor accountId. The action enum is self-documenting in the schema, but a key parameter is entirely unaddressed.

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 names a specific resource (mailbox folder) and enumerates all five verb-like actions that match the action enum, so the agent knows exactly what the tool mutates. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like mail_folders (listing) or mail_move (moving messages), leaving that differentiation to inference.

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?

It gives one real usage condition — delete 'requires the user's explicit deletion instruction' — which is a useful gating rule. However, it never says when to prefer this tool over mail_folders or mail_move, nor when subscribe/unsubscribe or rename are appropriate, so usage is only partially guided.

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