Delete an email message from a specified mailbox, routing it to the correct Trash folder using Apple Mail's native delete action.
Delete a message. Uses Mail's delete verb which routes to the correct Trash.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| messageId | Yes | The numeric ID of the message | |
| accountName | Yes | The name of the account containing the mailbox | |
| mailboxName | Yes | The name of the mailbox containing the message |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.2Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseInput schema / properties / messageId / maximumAdded value: +9007199254740991Input schema / properties / messageId / minimumAdded value: +-9007199254740991v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds a useful transparency detail: deleting uses Mail's delete verb and routes to the correct Trash rather than permanently erasing the message. However, it does not mention return behavior, reversibility beyond the Trash implication, or permission/side-effect considerations.
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 no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a meaningful behavioral clarification about Trash routing. Every sentence 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?
The tool has only three required parameters, all schema-documented, and the description explains the operational routing to Trash. However, it still has gaps: there is no output schema, no indication of what the response looks like, and no guidance on success/failure conditions. This is adequate but not fully complete.
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 has 100% description coverage for all three required parameters, so the schema already documents messageId, accountName, and mailboxName clearly. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 opens with a direct, specific action: 'Delete a message.' The operation is unambiguous and distinct from the sibling tools, since no other sibling provides deletion and the closest operations (move_message, flag_message) are clearly different.
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 should be used when a message must be deleted, but it does not explicitly discuss alternatives such as move_message, whether deletion is preferable to moving, or when not to use this tool. Usage context is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.