Permanently delete a mail account to stop fetching emails, removing its mail rules without affecting already-imported documents.
⚠️ DESTRUCTIVE: Permanently delete a mail account and stop fetching from it. Mail rules using it are deleted too. Already-imported documents are not affected.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| confirm | Yes | Must be true to confirm this destructive operation |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description adds real value by spelling out consequences: mail rules using the account are also deleted, fetching stops, but imported documents remain untouched. This goes beyond the binary annotation and gives the agent a precise picture of collateral effects.
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 one compact sentence with the destructive warning front-loaded. Every clause adds useful consequence information, and there is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.
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 destructive two-parameter operation, the description covers the main action, cascade deletion, and what is unaffected. The schema already documents that confirm must be true. A minor gap is that id's exact semantics are not described, but this is still largely sufficient for correct invocation.
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 description coverage is only 50%: the confirm parameter is documented, but id is just a bare number. The description does not compensate by explaining that id identifies the mail account to be deleted or how it relates to confirm, so an agent must infer that meaning.
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 ('delete') and resource ('mail account'), making the action unmistakable. It also clarifies permanence and the stop-fetching effect, which separates it from create/update/test/process account siblings.
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 clearly indicates when the tool is appropriate: when a mail account must be permanently removed and no longer fetched. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the sibling context makes the usage obvious.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.