Delete Mail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds the auth requirement (Mail.ReadWrite) but does not disclose whether the deletion is permanent or moves to trash, nor any return behavior. This is minimally sufficient but lacks deeper behavioral context.

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 plus Chinese intents, extremely concise and front-loaded with the action. Every word earns its place with no 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 delete tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the action, the required permission, and the parameter. It lacks side-effect disclosure but is otherwise complete for the simplicity of the tool.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter (messageId), so the description does not need to add parameter details. It also does not add extra semantics beyond the schema's 'Message ID' explanation, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 message, using a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling mail tools like mail_list_messages, mail_get_message, mail_move_message, and mail_copy_message by specifying the delete action. The Chinese intents further clarify the purpose.

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 mentions the required permission (delegated Mail.ReadWrite), which is important context for when to use the tool. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the tool's name and the sibling list make the deletion use case obvious.

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