delete_emails

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry the burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait that this is a soft delete, moving emails to Trash and being recoverable, which is critical for a delete operation. It could add more detail about permissions or failure behavior, but the soft-delete disclosure is substantive.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource. No redundant words; every phrase adds meaning.

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 simple tool with 2 params and no output schema, the description covers the action, recoverability, and UID semantics. It lacks explicit return-value info, but that's not expected for a delete operation. Overall adequate given complexity.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that UIDs are permanent identifiers, which prevents misuse (e.g., assuming sequence numbers). It doesn't detail folder behavior, but schema already documents the default.

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 action ('Move emails to Trash') and resource (emails by UIDs), and distinguishes from sibling tools like archive_emails by explicitly noting it's a soft, recoverable delete to Trash. It also adds context about UIDs being permanent identifiers.

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 implies usage—delete to Trash when you need recoverable removal—but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like move_emails or archive_emails. It offers a hint about UIDs being permanent, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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