email_delete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add the key constraint that only certain statuses are eligible, which is useful. However, it does not state whether the deletion is permanent, whether special permissions are required, or what happens if the email is not in the supported statuses. This is a modest but incomplete disclosure for a mutating action.

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 short sentences, with the primary action front-loaded. Every phrase earns its place, including the crucial status constraint. No filler or redundant information is present.

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 simple single-parameter delete tool, the description covers the essential 'what' and 'when' context. It lacks mention of return values or error behavior, but since there is no output schema, that is a minor gap. The status constraint adds valuable context that makes the tool's usage 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?

The schema already provides a description for the only parameter (email_id: 'Email ID to delete'), yielding 100% schema coverage. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 the specific verb 'Delete/cancel' with the resource 'outbound email', clearly distinguishing it from sibling delete tools like message_delete or alias_delete. It also adds a scope condition ('Only works for emails with status pending, queued, or deferred'), which further clarifies the exact purpose.

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 provides a clear when-to-use condition by specifying which statuses qualify ('pending', 'queued', 'deferred'), effectively excluding other states. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives for emails in other states, such as email_get or email_create, so it falls short of fully explicit when-not/alternatives guidance.

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