delete-rule

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the rule is removed permanently, warns it is destructive, and requires explicit user confirmation plus a preliminary list-rules call. This is strong transparency, though it does not mention error handling or behavior for non-existent names. The output schema likely covers return value format.

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 tightly formatted into four labeled segments (Use when, Returns, Do not use when, Safety), each earning its place. It is front-loaded with the primary use case and avoids redundant content.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no nested objects) and has an output schema to document return values. The description covers when, when-not, prerequisites, and safety completely. No gaps are apparent.

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 schema provides only a 'name' field with minLength. The description clarifies that name refers to the rule name and emphasizes using list-rules to confirm the exact name, adding practical meaning. It does not discuss case sensitivity, but for a single parameter it is sufficiently helpful.

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 opens with 'Use when: permanently removing a Mail rule by name,' which clearly specifies the verb and resource. It further differentiates from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning disable-rule and create-rule, 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?

Provides explicit use and non-use guidance, naming alternatives (disable-rule, create-rule) and recommending list-rules first to confirm the exact name. This fully addresses when to use the tool versus alternatives.

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