imap_delete_mailbox

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

The description surfaces only that the operation deletes a mailbox/folder, but there are no annotations for readOnly or destructive behaviorconstant, and it does not disclose that deletion is irreversible or what happens to contained messages. Behavioral bar is higher in the absence of annotations.

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 concise sentence with zero filler; the action and target are front-loaded.

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 tool with no safety annotations, the description is too thin. It omits irreversibility, impact on contained messages, and any distinction from near-siblings like imap_bulk_delete or imap_search_and_delete. The output schema partially compensates, but key behavioral context is missing.

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?

No parameter detail is given beyond the target object. The schema presumably defines mailbox/folder and account parameters, so this is acceptable minimalism, but the description does not clarify essential usage semantics like which identifier is required.

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 identifies the action as deleting a mailbox/folder)Skip, which is specific enough to distinguish from message-level tools like imap_delete_message. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling mailbox operations, but the verb and target resource are 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as imap_rename_mailbox, imap_bulk_delete, or imap_search_and_delete. The description is limited to what the tool does, not when it is appropriate.

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