Empty Junk

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

Beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation, it discloses that messages skip Trash, that there is no undo, and that the response returns a per-account deleted count. This is precisely the behavioral context an agent needs before an irreversible bulk delete, though it does not cover permission requirements or partial-failure behavior.

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-loads the destructive scope in the first clause and compresses alternatives and return value into the remainder with no filler sentences. It is dense and slightly run-on, but every clause carries 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 single-optional-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, it covers blast radius, irreversibility, review path, partial-delete alternative, and return value. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it safely 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 schema already explains that omitting accountId empties Junk for all accessible accounts, so the description largely restates it. It adds only the consequence framing ('every account MCP clients may use'), which is a mild reinforcement rather than new syntax or semantics.

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 (permanently delete), resource (all messages in Junk and its subfolders) and scope (one account or all accessible accounts). It explicitly distinguishes itself from deleteMessages ('only some: deleteMessages') and implicitly from emptyTrash by naming Junk as the target folder.

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?

Gives explicit routing: use getRecentMessages to review first, and use deleteMessages when only some messages should go. The alternative and the condition that selects it are both named, so an agent can choose correctly without opening other schemas.

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