batch-delete-messages

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It discloses that messages are moved to Trash, returns counts and failure reasons, warns it is destructive, requires explicit user confirmation, and explains the subtle id-scoping rule (ambiguous ids are 'refused, not guessed'). No contradiction with annotations since none exist.

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 organized into clear labeled sections ('Use when', 'Do not use when', 'Safety'), each sentence earning its place. It is slightly longer than necessary—some redundancy between 'moves them to Trash' and 'destructive'—but every detail serves a purpose, making it highly scannable and dense.

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 the moderate complexity from the bulk operation, scoping rules, and failure modes, the description covers all essentials: what it does, what it returns, when not to use it, and critical safety/precondition steps. It does not explicitly state idempotency or concurrency behavior, but nothing important is missing for this tool's usage.

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 67% (sourceAccount and sourceMailbox have descriptions, ids does not). The description adds substantial meaning to the 'ids' parameter (1–100, mailbox-scoped) and explains how sourceMailbox/sourceAccount pin ids to a mailbox and how ambiguous matches are handled, going well beyond the schema's basic field descriptions.

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 tool's purpose: 'deleting multiple messages in one call (1–100 ids; moves them to Trash).' It uses a specific verb-resource pairing and explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming 'delete-message' (single) and 'batch-move-messages' (filing), making the purpose 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?

It gives explicit 'Use when' and 'Do not use when' guidance, naming specific alternative tools (delete-message, batch-move-messages) and instructing to 'search-messages/list-messages first to confirm every id is correct before deleting.' This is model guidance for an agent.

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