Delete Folder

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses the two-stage deletion model (Trash first, permanent only when already in Trash), the possibility of a user confirmation prompt, and asynchronous server-side completion on IMAP that must be verified with listFolders. These are exactly the traits an agent cannot infer from annotations. It loses a point for the slightly ambiguous phrase 'possibly after asking the user', which leaves the confirmation behavior conditional and unclear.

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 core action and its consequence lead the sentence, with caveats compressed into parentheses and a trailing follow-up instruction. The nested clauses (Trash / permanent / confirmation) make the middle section dense enough to require a second read, but no sentence is wasted.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: scope of deletion, staging behavior, confirmation possibility, and how to verify completion via listFolders. Nothing material 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% and the single folderPath parameter is already documented in the schema as a URI from listFolders. The description adds no further meaning about format, constraints, or failure modes for the parameter, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Delete a mail folder and all its contents') and immediately carves out an edge case (saved searches are views, no mail deleted), which tells an agent exactly what object is affected. It stops short of distinguishing itself from near-siblings such as moveFolder or renameFolder by name, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent learns to follow up with listFolders on IMAP, and that deleting a saved search is harmless. There is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance against alternatives like moveFolder or deleteMessages, and no prerequisite such as listing folders first.

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