MCP Email Service

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the two deletion modes (trash vs. permanent), which is useful, but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify permissions required, whether deletions are reversible, potential rate limits, error handling for invalid IDs, or what happens if the operation fails partially. For a destructive batch operation, this is a significant gap.

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 that front-loads the core action ('Delete multiple emails') and adds essential qualification ('move to trash or permanently delete'). There is no wasted verbiage, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 tool's complexity (destructive batch operation with 6 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It should address safety considerations (e.g., irreversible deletion with 'permanent'), error scenarios, and expected outcomes. The current description leaves too many behavioral aspects ambiguous for a tool of this nature.

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 all parameters thoroughly (e.g., 'email_ids' as list of IDs, 'permanent' for deletion mode). The description adds minimal value by hinting at the 'permanent' parameter's effect, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format, or usage context beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high 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 action ('Delete multiple emails') and distinguishes between two deletion modes ('move to trash or permanently delete'), which is specific and informative. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_email' or 'delete_emails' (singular vs. plural naming suggests batch vs. single operations, but this isn't stated in the description).

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 'delete_email' or 'delete_emails' (both siblings), nor does it mention prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts. It only describes what the tool does, not when it's appropriate.

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