voidmail_delete_email

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether the deletion is permanent, whether it moves to trash, or whether it affects other references. With annotations carrying the burden this is not contradictory, but the description contributes no extra behavioral context.

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?

A single short sentence that is front-loaded with the action and contains no filler. It is efficient, though slightly under-specified rather than richly structured.

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 one-parameter mutation tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the definition is minimally adequate. It omits whether deletion is reversible and what happens if the email_id does not exist or is already deleted, which matters for a destructive, idempotent operation.

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%, with email_id documented as 'Email ID to delete' including min/max length constraints, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no format, source, or retrieval guidance for the ID (e.g., where to obtain it), so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb (Delete) and resource (an email from the inbox), so the agent knows exactly what action is performed. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the other deletion-capable sibling (voidmail_delete_alias) or clarify scope (single message vs. thread/conversation).

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as voidmail_mark_read or voidmail_revoke_recipient, nor any stated preconditions or exclusions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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