delete_email

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It explicitly discloses that the operation marks the email as deleted and expunges it, which reveals the destructive and potentially permanent nature of the action. However, it does not mention reversibility or required permissions, so it is not fully transparent.

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 extremely concise—two sentences with a structured Args list. It front-loads the core action and then adds parameter details without unnecessary filler.

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 two-parameter deletion tool with an output schema, the description adequately covers the action and parameters. It lacks edge-case or error-related details, but those are not essential for a tool of this complexity.

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 schema has no description coverage for its two parameters, but the description's Args section compensates by explaining uid as the email's UID and mailbox as the folder name with a default of INBOX. This adds crucial meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 function in Swedish: 'Ta bort ett e-post' (delete an email) and elaborates 'markerar som borttaget och expungerar' (marks as deleted and expunges), which precisely defines the deletion behavior. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like move_email or mark_email_read.

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, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It merely describes the operation without contextual usage hints.

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