delete_smime_info

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 tool performs a deletion, implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't specify whether this action is reversible, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., on email sending), or what happens on success/failure. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the key action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every word serves a purpose, with zero redundancy or 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 (a destructive mutation with 2 required parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but misses critical behavioral details (e.g., irreversibility, error conditions) and usage context. The high schema coverage helps, but the description doesn't fully compensate for the missing safety and operational context.

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%, with both parameters ('sendAsEmail' and 'id') clearly documented in the schema. The description mentions these parameters generically ('specified S/MIME config for the specified send-as alias') but adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema already provides. This meets the baseline score of 3 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 action ('Deletes') and the resource ('S/MIME config for the specified send-as alias'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_send_as' or 'set_default_smime_info', which would require more specific context about what distinguishes S/MIME config deletion from other deletion operations.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the S/MIME config must exist), exclusions, or related tools like 'insert_smime_info' or 'set_default_smime_info' for managing S/MIME configurations. The agent must infer usage from the name and parameters alone.

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