mailer_config_delete

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

No annotations were provided, so the description carries the full burden. It accurately discloses the destructive nature by explaining the consequence: documents will revert to the default Storno address. This explains the key behavioral outcome (the config is permanently removed, reverting to default behavior) without over-explaining. For a destructive config-deletion tool this is sufficient 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?

Two concise sentences, no wasted words. The first states the action; the second states the consequence. Front-loaded with the core purpose. Zero filler.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema destructive tool, the description is complete. It states the action, the resource affected, and the behavioral consequence. Sibling tools exist (mailer_config_get/update/test, storage_config_delete for a parallel delete pattern) but this deletion tool doesn't need more context given its simplicity and the clear consequence statement.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters (no input schema properties), so there are no parameters requiring documentation. The description correctly reflects this by making no mention of parameters. Baseline 4 for 0-parameter tools is appropriate here since there's nothing to explain.

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 what the tool does: deletes the organization's custom email sender configuration. The verb 'Delete' plus the specific resource ('custom email sender configuration') gives clear purpose. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like mailer_config_get/update, but the delete semantics are self-evident from the name and the sibling set is large enough that the name itself is unambiguous.

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 implies a clear operational consequence ('Client documents revert to being sent from the default Storno address'), which conveys when this tool is appropriate versus keeping the custom config. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or reference alternatives like mailer_config_update, but the consequence statement provides meaningful decision context for an agent.

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