Delete Mail Folder

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the destructive nature ('Delete a mailbox folder and its contents') and the required permission, but it does not mention whether the deletion is permanent, if it affects child folders beyond contents, or any recovery options. This leaves important behavioral traits undisclosed.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main action. It includes the essential requirement in a second sentence and adds Chinese intents for multilingual recognition. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the length is appropriate for a simple delete tool.

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 one-parameter delete tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the basic function and permission requirement. However, it omits critical context such as whether the deletion is irreversible or if it includes subfolders. This gap is significant for a destructive operation and prevents a higher score.

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% coverage for the single parameter folderId with description 'Folder ID to delete.' The tool description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and no additional semantic contribution is made.

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 with a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a mailbox folder and its contents.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like mail_delete_message (deletes a message) and mail_update_folder (updates a folder). The inclusion of Chinese intents further clarifies the intended action.

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 a clear usage prerequisite: 'Requires delegated Mail.ReadWrite.' This gives context on when the tool is accessible. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., mail_delete_message) or any exclusions. The context is sufficiently clear for a well-scoped delete operation.

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