Undo Mailbox Import

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

The description claims to queue deletion, which is a destructive action, but annotations state destructiveHint=false. This contradiction undermines transparency. The description does not disclose whether the queue is asynchronous or what happens to import metadata.

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 concise, front-loaded sentences with zero wasted words. The key action and scope are immediately clear.

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 output schema exists, return value explanation is not needed. The description covers the core behavior and constraints. It could mention idempotency (hinted in annotations) but is otherwise sufficient.

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% and includes descriptions for both parameters. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema already provides.

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 it queues deletion of messages created by an import, and distinguishes from cancel by noting it undoes completed imports. The verb 'undo' is specific and the clarification about existing mail not being touched adds precision.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cancel_mailbox_import. It does not specify prerequisites or scenarios where this is appropriate versus other import management tools.

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