delete_messages

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the important confirm=true safety gate, which is genuine behavioral context, but it says nothing about whether deletion is permanent or recoverable, what permissions are needed, or whether the whole batch is deleted atomically if one id is invalid.

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?

Two short sentences with the action front-loaded and no filler. The brevity is efficient, though it borders on under-specification rather than tightness.

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, multi-id mutation with zero annotations, the description is thin: it omits irreversibility, permission requirements, and batch behavior. The existence of an output schema relieves it of explaining return values, but the safety-critical context an agent needs before calling this is largely absent.

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 0%, so the description must explain both parameters. It clarifies the semantics of confirm (must be true to act, overriding the schema's default of false), but message_ids — the required parameter — gets no explanation of format, source, or limits on how many ids may be passed.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Delete inbox messages"), which an agent can distinguish from siblings like inbox and mark_messages_read. It stops short of stating scope details such as single vs bulk deletion, but the core action is 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?

The phrase "Needs confirm=true" implies this is a guarded destructive operation and tells the agent what is required to proceed. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (e.g., mark_messages_read when the intent is only to archive), and no statement of when the tool should not be used.

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