email_batch_delete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. The description says 'Delete' which implies destructive behavior, but doesn't disclose whether deletion is reversible, whether permanent=true permanently removes emails, what happens to attachments, rate limits, or what the sourceFolder requirement means for certain accounts. For a destructive batch operation, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 conveys the core purpose without filler. However, given the number of undocumented parameters and lack of annotations, the brevity comes at the cost of necessary information. It's concise but arguably under-specified 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?

For a destructive mutating tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and only 25% schema coverage, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain the permanent flag, sourceFolder requirements for IMAP/iCloud accounts, error handling, batch limits, or how this compares to email_delete. The output schema absence means the description should at least hint at return behavior. This is well below minimum viable for a complex destructive 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 description coverage is only 25% (only sourceFolder has a description). The description itself adds zero parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. With 4 parameters and only 1 documented in the schema, the description completely fails to compensate for the undocumented parameters (accountId, emailIds, permanent). The agent has no guidance on what 'permanent' means or how accountId/emailIds should be structured.

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 verb (delete) and resource (multiple emails at once), which distinguishes batch operation from single deletes. However, it doesn't explicitly mention details like whether this also supports permanent deletion, which sibling email_delete might suggest. The purpose is clear enough to distinguish from email_delete but could be more specific about scope.

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 says this is 'much faster than individual deletes' which implies it should be used for bulk operations, but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of the permanent flag trade-offs, no mention of folder dependencies (sourceFolder being required for IMAP/iCloud), and no distinction about when to prefer this over email_delete. There's no exclusions or alternatives mentioned other than the vague speed advantage.

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