delete_message

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden, and it does add real value by revealing this is a move to Trash (recoverable soft delete) rather than a permanent purge, plus a mailbox-capability precondition. However, it omits auth/permission errors, failure behavior, and what happens if the mailbox disallows deletion.

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?

One short sentence with the core action front-loaded and the key constraint in a parenthetical. Zero wasted words.

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-parameter, no-output-schema tool the description covers the essential shape: what happens to the message, the soft-delete semantics, and the precondition. It is nearly complete, missing only error/permission failure behavior.

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% with a single 'id' parameter documented as 'Message id from list_messages', so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about the parameter, but nothing is needed given the schema already fully documents it.

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 and resource ('Move a message to Trash'), and the parenthetical clarifies it is a soft-delete rather than permanent removal, which distinguishes it from a hard-delete interpretation. No explicit naming of siblings like mark_message or read_message, so it is clear but not sibling-differentiated.

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 no when-to-use guidance or alternatives — it never says to use this instead of mark_message or how it relates to other message-mutating tools. The parenthetical 'only if the mailbox allows deleting' is a runtime precondition, not usage direction for the agent.

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