imap_bulk_delete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses batch processing and auto-reconnection, but omits irreversibility, permission requirements, failure behavior, or response format. Significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff. Each sentence adds value: first states core action and features, second explains purpose of chunking. Ideal length.

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?

No output schema; description lacks return value info (e.g., number deleted, success/failure). For a bulk operation, error handling and result format are missing. Sibling tools like 'imap_delete_email' likely provide status, so this gap is notable.

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% with descriptions. The description adds context that chunking prevents timeouts, relating to 'chunkSize'. This enriches understanding beyond the schema, but does not detail parameter constraints or interactions.

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 multiple emails at once, with key features like chunking and auto-reconnection. It distinguishes from siblings like 'imap_delete_email' (single) and 'imap_bulk_delete_by_search' (by search).

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 for large deletions to avoid timeouts via chunking, but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives like 'imap_delete_email' for single deletes or 'imap_bulk_delete_by_search' for search-based deletion. No when-not-to-use guidance.

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