Prepare email deletion

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

Annotations already signal read/write and destructive hints, so the description's added 'capped Trash plan' and exact-sender rule provide some extra context. However, it does not explain side effects, what 'capped' means operationally, or what happens when this plan is applied.

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 sentence with no filler, and the central constraint about exact sender matching is placed immediately after the main action. It could be more informative, but it is structured efficiently.

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 10-parameter tool that prepares a deletion plan, the description is too thin. It omits how a capped plan relates to the limit parameter, whether any deletion is performed immediately, and what distinguishes it from triage_plan or triage_apply.

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 parameters are already documented. The description's main semantic addition, exact sender matching, is also already stated in the from_addr schema, so it adds little beyond the schema.

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 identifies a specific action and object: preparing a capped Trash plan, and adds a concrete selection rule (exact sender match). It is clearer than the name alone, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as triage_plan.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool rather than triage_plan, search_emails, or triage_apply. The sentence states a behavior but not a decision context or exclusions.

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