imap_delete_message

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action (delete) and the confirm requirement, but does not disclose whether deletion is permanent, whether it moves to trash, whether it requires specific permissions, or what the output/return value is. The confirm parameter is mentioned in the schema, so the description adds little beyond that.

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 extremely short ('Delete a message'), which is concise but under-specified. It front-loads the core action but omits important context. The schema description repeats the tool name and confirm requirement, adding some structure but not much value.

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 tool's destructive nature and the presence of many sibling deletion tools, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the deletion semantics (permanent vs trash), the confirm flag's purpose beyond the schema, or how this differs from imap_bulk_delete and imap_search_and_delete. The output schema exists but the description doesn't reference what happens after deletion.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Delete a message' states a clear verb and resource, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like imap_bulk_delete or imap_search_and_delete, which also delete messages. The input schema's description adds a bit more context ('Requires explicit confirm=true') but the tool description itself is minimal.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like imap_bulk_delete or imap_search_and_delete. The schema mentions the confirm requirement, but there is no explicit context about when this tool is appropriate or when a sibling should be chosen.

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