delete_email

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds meaningful context beyond them: the operation is a soft delete (moved to Trash, not permanently expunged, recoverable from the client) and the Trash folder is discovered via SPECIAL-USE with concrete examples. Auth requirements and error behavior are still unstated.

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?

Front-loads the core action and its mechanism before the behavioral note and the Args block. The SPECIAL-USE parenthetical is slightly verbose but earns its place by pinning down the Trash resolution behavior; the Args block is justified given zero schema coverage.

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 mutation with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description supplies the key behavioral caveat (recoverable soft delete), parameter meanings, and folder-discovery detail. Missing only edge-case behavior (e.g., message not found, permission failures) to be fully complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden and documents all three params: account (sourced from list_accounts), folder (the message's current folder), and uid (the message UID within that folder). The account reference to list_accounts is a helpful pointer, though uid format and how to obtain it are not fully spelled out.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete a message') and immediately defines the mechanism ('by moving it to the account's Trash folder'), which usefully distinguishes it as a soft-delete rather than permanent removal. It does not explicitly name a sibling such as move_email, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no reference to alternatives like move_email for relocation. Usage is only implied by the delete semantics; the recoverability note hints at consequences but is not framed as selection guidance.

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