infomaniak_empty_mailbox_trash

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

The description adds 'permanently' and 'after confirmation', which are not fully captured by the annotations (destructiveHint, readOnlyHint). This communicates irreversibility and a confirmation step, providing useful behavioral context beyond the structured 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 a single, information-dense sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 captures the core purpose and irreversible nature, but it omits details about the confirmation token parameter and how it is used. While an output schema exists and annotations cover safety flags, the parameter semantics gap makes the description incomplete for accurate tool invocation.

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%, and the description does not explain the purpose of mail_hosting_id, mailbox_name, or confirmation_token. The only hint is 'after confirmation', which aligns with confirmation_token, but parameter roles are not explicitly clarified. This is a significant gap since the description must compensate for missing schema descriptions.

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 action ('permanently delete'), the target ('all messages in a mailbox trash folder'), and a key condition ('after confirmation'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like infomaniak_purge_spam_folder and infomaniak_empty_drive_trash by specifying the mailbox trash folder.

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 usage context is implied by the description and name, but there are no explicit instructions on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., purging spam folder) or any prerequisites. It is clear enough for a single-purpose tool but lacks explicit guidance.

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