empty_folder

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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint: true. The description adds value beyond that by stating irreversibility ('Irreversible'), the all-or-nothing scope ('ALL messages'), and the environment gating ('Only available when PROTONMAIL_ALLOW_EMPTY_FOLDER=true'). These are behavioral details the annotation doesn't cover. No contradiction with the destructiveHint.

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?

Four compact sentences with zero filler. The core destructive purpose is front-loaded, followed by routing guidance, use-case scoping, availability constraint, and consequence. Every sentence earns its place.

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 destructive bulk operation, the description covers purpose, alternative routing, use case, availability gating, and irreversibility. The confirmed parameter's two-step flow lives in the schema. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing; the only minor gap is that no return/confirmation behavior is described, which is acceptable given the schema documents the flow.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters including the two-step confirmed:false preview flow. The description reinforces the confirmation requirement by stating 'Irreversible', but adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 opens with a specific verb+resource statement: 'Permanently delete ALL messages in a folder at once.' It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling bulk_delete (subset removal) and delete_folder (deleting the folder structure), so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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?

Explicit routing guidance is given: 'Prefer bulk_delete when removing a subset of messages rather than everything in the folder. Use only when the goal is to clear an entire folder (e.g. emptying Trash or Spam).' This names the alternative and the exact condition that selects this tool.

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