Remove an inbox rule by its ID, optionally targeting a shared mailbox. Returns confirmation of deletion.
Delete an inbox mail rule by id.
Args: rule_id: Graph rule id. Required. mailbox: Optional mailbox (email or user id) for shared mailboxes.
Returns: {"deleted": True, "id": }
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mailbox | No | ||
| rule_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the destructive nature, the optional mailbox behavior, and the exact return shape, which is useful. However, it does not mention permissions, irreversibility, error behavior, or behavior when the rule_id does not 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 tightly structured with Args and Returns sections, contains no filler, and front-loads the core action. Every line contributes either invocation semantics or return behavior.
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 no annotations or output schema, the description covers the core action, both parameters, and the response format, which is solid for a simple two-parameter delete operation. It could be more complete by mentioning error cases or confirmation of irreversibility, but nothing essential for a basic correct invocation 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates fully: rule_id is explained as a Graph rule id and marked required, and mailbox is explained as optional and used for shared mailboxes with accepted value types. This adds real meaning beyond the bare schema properties.
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?
States a specific action ('Delete') and resource ('inbox mail rule') and identifies the id-based selection mechanism. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like delete_message, get_rule, or update_rule without requiring schema inspection.
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 description makes the deletion intent explicit and includes the optional shared-mailbox qualifier, giving clear context for when this tool applies. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the verb and resource leave little ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.