mail_delete_signature

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

The annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so the description adds no behavioral context beyond what is structured. It does not mention irreversibility, impact on existing drafts, or any side effects. With annotations present, the description should still add value but fails to do so.

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 sentence, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it lacks structure (e.g., separate sections for purpose, parameters, behavior). While brevity is positive, some additional information could be included without losing conciseness.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema) and the presence of destructive annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the tool's effect thoroughly—deleting a signature but omitting whether it affects existing signatures in drafts or sent messages. Completeness is insufficient for reliable use.

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 no parameter descriptions (0% schema coverage), and the tool description does not explain the 'name' parameter—its nature, format, or how to obtain it. The description provides zero added meaning for the parameter, leaving the agent blind to what value is expected.

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 deletes a Mail signature, which is a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes from sibling tools like mail_create_signature and mail_update_signature, as it is the only delete operation for signatures. However, it lacks additional specificity (e.g., 'permanently deletes'), so it doesn't achieve a 5.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., the signature must exist) or contexts where deletion might be inappropriate. This lack of usage direction leaves the AI agent without essential decision support.

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