delete_email

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint: true, and the description reinforces this by stating 'Irreversible — the message cannot be recovered'. It adds context about the IMAP expunge mechanism, though it does not detail potential side effects like folder state changes. Overall, good transparency beyond annotations.

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 concise with three sentences, each adding distinct value: action, usage guidance, and irreversibility warning. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

The description covers purpose, usage, and consequences well. However, it does not mention what the tool returns or any success/failure response, which would be helpful given the absence of an output schema. Slightly incomplete but still strong.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters (emailId and confirmed). The description does not add additional parameter meaning beyond what is already in the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states 'Permanently delete an email' and specifies the mechanism 'via IMAP expunge'. It distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning 'Prefer trash_email if recovery may be required', making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides when to use ('only when certain the message is no longer needed') and when not to ('Prefer trash_email if recovery may be required'), offering clear guidance on decision-making between sibling tools.

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