infomaniak_purge_spam_folder

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive and non-read-only. The description adds valuable behavioral context by noting a 'destructive two-phase commit with mailbox security state guard', which goes beyond the raw annotations and warns the agent about the operation's safety mechanism and destructive nature.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action and immediately followed by the critical destructive and safety caveat. No filler or redundant wording.

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 tool, the description conveys the key safety behaviors (two-phase commit, security guard) and the exact scope ('all messages currently in a mailbox spam folder'). An output schema exists, which reduces the need to document return values. Slightly more detail on what the 'security state guard' entails could improve completeness, but overall it is adequate.

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 description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides. The schema covers mail_hosting_id and mailbox_name clearly, and the description's mention of 'two-phase commit' hints at the confirmation_token's purpose but does not explicitly explain when or why it is needed. At 67% schema coverage, the description should compensate for the under-documented confirmation_token but does not.

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 uses a specific verb ('Delete all messages') and resource ('mailbox spam folder'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like infomaniak_empty_mailbox_trash or infomaniak_block_sender. The scope and action are 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 description clearly states what the tool does ('Delete all messages currently in a mailbox spam folder'), so the use case is evident. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the 'currently' wording and destructive framing provide clear context relative to other mailbox tools.

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