Bulk action

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value on top: it names delete as one of the destructive actions, discloses the 100-ID batching limit, and states that success/failure counts are returned, which hints at partial-failure behavior. It stops short of saying whether failures are atomic/rolled back or what auth is required.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then supported actions, then limits and return shape. No redundant or filler language.

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 5-param mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers actions, batching limits, and return summary, while annotations carry the destructive profile and the schema carries parameter detail. Minor gap: no statement about partial-failure/atomicity semantics or the destination requirement for 'move' (left to the schema).

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 every parameter, including the move-requires-destination rule and the UID array bounds. The description restates the action list and the 100 max without adding syntax or format meaning, so the 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?

States a specific verb (batch operation) and resource (multiple emails by UID list) and enumerates exactly which actions are supported. The 'bulk'/'multiple emails' framing cleanly separates it from the single-item siblings move_email, delete_email, and mark_email without needing to name them.

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?

Batching semantics imply the use case (act on many UIDs in one call rather than looping single-item tools), and the max-100 cap signals a practical boundary. However, it never states when to prefer this over repeated single-email calls, nor any exclusions or prerequisites, so guidance remains implicit.

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