delete_email

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the safety burden. It does this well by disclosing that deletion is non-destructive by default (moves to Trash) and that permanent=true switches to a destructive path. It also surfaces a real operational limitation. It does not explicitly warn that permanent deletion is irreversible, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 two terse sentences with the action front-loaded. Every clause earns its place by adding a behavioral fact: what it does, how permanent changes it, and where it is refused.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential context: target resource, default vs permanent behavior, and a critical unsupported folder. It lacks an explicit irreversibility warning and a cross-reference to move_email, but those are not necessary 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the non-obvious parameter 'permanent' by tying it to the Trash behavior. The uid, account, and mailbox parameters are not described, though their names and schema defaults make them reasonably inferable.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Delete an email') and immediately clarifies the core semantics: Trash by default, permanent deletion only when permanent=true. It also states a concrete boundary ('Refused on the virtual All Mail folder'), which distinguishes the tool from generic delete or move 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 gives a clear use case ('Delete an email') and explains the default vs permanent behavior. It also provides an explicit when-not by stating that the operation is refused on All Mail. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like move_email, but the selection context is clear enough for an agent.

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