messagerie_supprimer

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the default path is recoverable (trash) and permanent deletion is gated on the message already being trashed. It stops short of explaining permissions or what happens on invalid mode/ids.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the two modes in order of default-to-explicit. No filler or repetition.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the decision-relevant facts (recoverability, precondition for permanent deletion) and annotations cover the safety flags. Minor gap: nothing about failure behavior or permissions.

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?

With 0% reported schema coverage, the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does explain the mode parameter's two values and their precondition. The required ids parameter is left entirely to its name/type, so the compensation is only partial.

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 (Supprime) and resource (messages) and enumerates both effect modes (corbeille vs definitive). It is clearly distinguishable from read/list siblings, but it does not name the adjacent operations (restaurer, deplacer) that an agent would need to disambiguate against.

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?

It gives a real conditional rule for the mode parameter: definitive only applies to messages already in the trash, and trash is the default. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over messagerie_restaurer or messagerie_deplacer, so alternative-selection guidance is only implied.

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