Remove one item from the pending approval queue without affecting Apple Mail. Requires explicit user approval before calling.
Discard one pending approval-queue item. It will not affect Apple Mail. Only call after explicit user approval.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| item_id | Yes | ||
| user_approved | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two meaningful traits: the side-effect boundary ('will not affect Apple Mail', distinguishing it from the Apple Mail-mutating siblings) and the authorization requirement. It does not state whether the discard is permanent or whether the original draft/thread is preserved, which is the main remaining gap for a destructive operation.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by the scope boundary and the precondition. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is padded.
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?
No output schema and no annotations, so the description must stand alone; it covers action, blast radius, and the approval gate. Remaining gaps are the irreversibility of the discard and the failure mode for a non-pending or missing item_id.
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 compensate for both parameters. 'One pending approval-queue item' implies item_id's target and 'explicit user approval' maps to the user_approved flag, but neither is named or given format expectations (e.g., the UUID requirement); the const:true constraint is only visible in the schema. Partial compensation, not full.
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?
States a specific verb (discard) and a precisely scoped resource (one pending approval-queue item), which cleanly separates it from approve_queued_email, list_approval_queue, and queue_email_for_approval. An agent can identify the target object and action without opening the schema.
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?
Provides an explicit precondition ('Only call after explicit user approval') that gates invocation, and the pairing with the sibling approve_queued_email is implicit in the choice of the verb 'discard'. It stops short of naming the alternative tool or describing the state the item must be in (e.g., still pending).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.