Delete an email

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description adds that the operation is a move to Trash rather than an expunge, so the message remains recoverable. It also discloses the EMAIL_ALLOW_DELETE=true prerequisite. These details go beyond the annotation and clarify the actual destructive scope and conditions, providing substantial added context.

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 description is concise (two short paragraphs) and front-loads the core action and prerequisite in the first sentence. The second paragraph adds a single clarifying nuance about recoverability. No unnecessary words or repetition. It is well-structured and efficient.

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 tool with only 2 parameters (1 required) and an output schema present, the description covers the essential behavioral aspects: the action, the recoverability, and the prerequisite. Nothing critical is missing, and the existence of an output schema means return values are already defined. The description is complete for its complexity.

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?

The input schema already describes both parameters (uid and folder) with 100% coverage. The description does not add further explanation of parameters or their usage beyond what the schema provides. It only mentions the folder implicitly through the move-to-Trash action, but that's not new information. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 a message to Trash') with a clear resource (a message) and destination (Trash). It differentiates from the sibling move_email by specifying the Trash destination and the recoverable nature, making its purpose unambiguous. The title also aligns perfectly.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like move_email. It implies this is for deletion (to Trash) but doesn't contrast with move_email or other siblings. The only guideline is the prerequisite EMAIL_ALLOW_DELETE=true, which is a requirement rather than a selection criterion. Guidance is minimal but present.

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