Delete Messages

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description goes well beyond that by disclosing the actual disposal path: soft delete to Trash, hard delete inside Trash itself, and hard delete on IMAP accounts configured not to move deleted mail. It does not state whether a confirmation is returned or what happens for non-existent IDs, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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 sentences, zero filler; the core operation and its scope lead, the behavioral exceptions follow, and the sibling routing closes it out. Dense but every clause carries decision-relevant information.

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 destructive tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, nothing an agent needs before calling it is missing: scope, disposal semantics, and the alternative tool are all present.

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 both parameters are documented there, including provenance (folderPath comes from listFolders or searchMessages). The description adds no further parameter detail, so the schema carries the weight and 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 (delete) and resource (messages) with explicit scope (from one folder), and names the sibling it is not (updateMessage for move/tag). The Thunderbird Delete-key analogy makes the semantic model immediately recognizable.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use this for deletion, use updateMessage to move or tag mail. It also spells out the conditions that change the outcome (in Trash = permanent, IMAP without move-to-trash = permanent, drafts go to Trash), which is when-to-use guidance at a level most definitions never reach.

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