delete_label

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses that the operation is irreversible, that messages are not deleted, and that the label is an IMAP folder under Labels/. This adds critical behavioral context that annotations do not convey.

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 concise sentences, each providing essential information: what it does, the side effects on messages, and the alternative tool. No redundant wording, front-loaded with the primary action.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers the key aspects: the operation, irreversibility, message preservation, and alternative for folders. It is complete for an agent to safely use and select this tool.

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?

The input schema already covers both parameters with descriptions (name and confirmed), so the description does not need to add parameter details. The description mentions the Labels/ prefix handling, which is already in the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate at 100% schema coverage.

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 the tool deletes a Proton label, specifying the exact resource and scope (Labels/ namespace). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling delete_folder by explicitly contrasting the target resource.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternative: 'For deleting a folder use delete_folder with a Folders/ prefix.' It also clarifies that the label itself is deleted, not the messages, which helps the agent choose correctly.

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