imap_bulk_delete_by_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action (search and delete) but does not mention irreversibility, batch processing, or the dryRun parameter's behavior. While not misleading, it lacks depth for a potentially destructive operation.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the key action (search and delete) followed by a practical use case. Every word earns its place; no fluff.

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 the tool's complexity (10 parameters, no output schema, destructive operation), the description is minimal. It omits return value details (e.g., count of deleted emails) and safety warnings. While the schema covers parameters, the description could be more complete for a bulk deletion 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%, so the input schema already thoroughly describes all 10 parameters and their defaults. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what is in the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 searches for emails matching criteria and deletes them, with a specific use case for cleaning spam or unwanted emails. This effectively distinguishes it from siblings like imap_bulk_delete (which likely deletes without search) and imap_delete_by_domain.

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 use case ('cleaning up spam or unwanted emails'), which implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for single deletion, use imap_delete_email) or mention alternatives, leaving room for ambiguity.

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