delete_email

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does state the key side effect — moving an email to trash — which implies recoverability, but it does not mention whether the message is expunged, how repeated deletion is handled, or what response or errors to expect.

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 five-word sentence with no filler. It is clear, front-loaded, and every word contributes to the core meaning.

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 simple two-parameter mutation tool with a fully documented schema, the description is largely complete: it names the operation, the target, and the destination. It could add a bit more behavioral context, but the schema already covers the mailbox default and required uid.

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 both uid and mailbox are already fully documented. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the baseline.

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 uses a specific verb ('Move') and resource ('an email') and clearly communicates that the action is a soft delete to trash. This distinguishes it from other email action tools such as mark_as_read, apply_label, or send_email.

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 use case is implied: call this when an email should be removed from a mailbox and placed in trash. However, the description does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, such as clarifying that this is not a permanent deletion or when the mailbox parameter is needed.

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