Move a message to Trash

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: the operation is a soft delete recoverable in Trash, it is gated on an operator-configured allow_delete flag, and the failure mode is the specific error code delete_not_allowed. This is valuable because destructiveHint=true alone would imply unrecoverable removal, and the description corrects that impression.

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?

Three short sentences, no filler. The operation and its reversibility are front-loaded, followed by the precondition, the alternative, and the return shape in that order of importance.

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 one-parameter destructive tool, everything an agent needs is present: what it does, the gating condition, the error code on refusal, the alternative tool, and the return value despite the absence of an output schema.

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 100%, so the single 'id' parameter is already documented as coming from list_messages. The description adds no further syntax, format, or validation detail beyond the schema, so 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+resource+destination: 'Move a received message to the Trash folder'. The parenthetical clarifies the semantics of the destination (recoverable until the server empties it), which distinguishes this from a hard delete or from mark_message.

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 names the alternative tool and the condition that selects it ('Use mark_message instead if you only want to mark it as handled') and states the enabling precondition (operator must have set allow_delete). Both the when and the when-not are covered.

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