MCP Email Service

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'permanently delete,' which implies an irreversible, destructive mutation, but does not disclose critical behavioral traits like required permissions, error handling for invalid IDs, rate limits, or confirmation prompts. The description is minimal and misses key operational details.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately clear without unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the complexity of a batch deletion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., irreversible nature, error handling), usage context compared to siblings, and expected outcomes. For a destructive operation, this is a significant gap.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('email_ids' and 'folder') fully. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format details for IDs or folder implications. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('permanently delete'), resource ('multiple emails'), and scope ('in batch'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'delete_email' (singular) and 'batch_move_to_trash' (non-permanent). It uses precise verbs and specifies the batch nature of the operation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'batch_move_to_trash' (for reversible deletion) or 'delete_email' (for single emails). It lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether emails must be in a specific state or folder, or any exclusions for use.

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