delete_emails

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (move to Trash, recoverable) but does not detail side effects, permissions, or what happens to related metadata. Basic transparency is present, but it could go deeper.

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 sentences with zero fluff. The action and key attributes are front-loaded, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what it does, how it works, and one critical behavioral note (recoverability). It doesn't mention the folder parameter, but the schema already covers that, so nothing critical is missing.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining 'UIDs are permanent identifiers', giving context beyond the schema's property description. This helps an agent understand the data format and stability of UIDs.

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 action ('Move emails to Trash folder'), the method (UIDs), and the key distinction from a hard delete ('soft delete, recoverable'). It clearly identifies the resource and operation, distinguishing it from siblings like move_emails or archive_emails.

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?

The description implies when to use this tool via 'soft delete, recoverable', but it does not explicitly name alternatives or specify conditions when this tool is preferred over siblings like archive_emails or move_emails. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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