Deletes emails from a folder by marking them as deleted and optionally expunging them permanently.
Exclui e-mails (marca \Deleted e, se expunge=True, remove definitivamente da pasta). Para 'mover para a lixeira' prefira move_email para a pasta Trash/Lixeira.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uids | Yes | ||
| folder | Yes | ||
| expunge | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and it discloses key behavior: emails are marked /Deleted)Skip and permanent removal happens only if expunge=True. It also implies mutating/possibly destructive behavior. It does not mention permissions, undo, or effects on shared mailboxes, but the core destructive behavior is transparent.
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, efficiently front-loaded with the core action and the key destructive nuance, followed by the relevant alternative. There is no filler or repetition of schema fields.
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 covers purpose, mechanism, and alternative routing, but lacks detail on UID format, folder naming expectations, and return/error behavior. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, those gaps remain unresolved, though the core deletion semantics are clear.
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%, yet the description only clarifies expunge. The uids and folder parameters, which are required, receive no semantic explanation. This leaves an agent to infer what format uids should take and how folder names are resolved.
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 states a specific verb-resource pair ('deletes emails') and gives a precise mechanism: marks /Deleted and optionally expunges permanently when expunge=True. It also explicitly differentiates itself from move_email, so an agent can distinguish it from the closest sibling without guessing.
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 gives clear routing guidance: if the user wants 'move to trash', use move_email instead. It does not explicitly state edge cases about when deletion is appropriate, but the semantic contrast is strong enough for typical agent selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.