delete_message

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the two deletion behaviors (move to Trash vs. permanent deletion) which is useful, but doesn't mention important aspects like whether deletion is reversible, what permissions are required, whether it affects other messages, or what happens on success/failure. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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, efficient sentence that communicates the core functionality and key behavioral distinction. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy or unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 this is a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description should do more to explain behavioral implications and expected outcomes. While it covers the basic action and deletion modes adequately, it lacks information about reversibility, error conditions, or what constitutes successful deletion. The 100% schema coverage helps but doesn't compensate for the behavioral gaps.

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 all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by hinting at the 'permanent' parameter's effect ('permanently delete'), but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Delete a message') and distinguishes between two deletion modes ('move to Trash or permanently delete'), which differentiates it from siblings like move_message (which moves between folders) or mark_message (which changes flags). The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.

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 implies usage context by mentioning the two deletion modes, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like move_message (for moving to folders other than Trash) or mark_message (for marking as deleted without removal). No prerequisites or exclusions are provided, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage scenarios.

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