message_delete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the deletion is permanent and irreversible, and that alias credentials are required. This conveys key behavioral traits, although it does not describe error handling or return behavior.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the action and includes only essential information. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail, making it concise and easy to parse.

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 three-parameter delete tool with the schema fully describing inputs, the description covers the core purpose, permanence, and authentication requirement. It is reasonably complete, though it omits potential error conditions or success response specifics, which could be valuable in some contexts.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all three parameters (message_id, alias_password, alias_username). The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so it meets the baseline expected for full schema coverage.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Permanently delete') and a specific resource ('a message for an alias (IMAP)'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like email_delete or message_update, and the IMAP context adds further clarity.

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 implies the tool is for permanently deleting messages via IMAP and mentions the prerequisite of alias credentials, but it does not explicitly provide alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios compared to sibling tools. Usage guidance is present but not fully explicit.

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