Delete email permanently

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the most critical behavioral trait—permanent, irreversible deletion—but omits other relevant context such as whether special permissions are required, effects on labels/attachments, or rate limits.

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?

A single seven-word sentence that front-loads the operative verb and the critical qualifier. Every word earns its place—there is zero redundancy.

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 2-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the core semantics are captured. The main gap is lacking a pointer to the trash/untrash siblings for reversible deletion scenarios, which would materially help an agent choose correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both 'id' (Message ID) and 'account' (Account nickname). The description adds no parameter-level meaning, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb ('Permanently delete') and resource ('a message'), and crucially adds 'irreversible' which distinguishes it from the sibling google_gmail_trash. An agent can immediately tell this is permanent deletion versus a reversible trash operation.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like google_gmail_trash or google_gmail_untrash. The word 'irreversible' implies caution, but there is no explicit direction such as 'use trash for recoverable deletion'.

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