Revoke an approved email recipient by exact address or @domain from a mailbox. The restriction applies immediately and requires no owner approval.
Remove an approved recipient (exact address or @domain) from this mailbox. Restricting takes effect at once and needs no owner approval; adding it back does.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pattern | Yes | Exact address or @domain to revoke |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=true and readOnly=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond them: the change is instant, requires no approval, and reversing it (re-adding) does require approval — useful asymmetry for an agent to know before calling.
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 short sentences, both carrying weight, with the core action front-loaded in the first. The second sentence is slightly terse ('adding it back does') and uses 'Restricting' for what is essentially a revoke, a minor looseness that keeps it from a 5.
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?
With one required parameter, no output schema, and annotations carrying safety semantics, the description covers action, scope, and the approval asymmetry. It does not say what happens if the recipient was never approved or what the call returns, but for this complexity level it is nearly complete.
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% and the pattern constraint is fully specified in the schema. The description restates the accepted input forms ('exact address or @domain') but adds no format, validation, or edge-case detail beyond the schema, 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Remove an approved recipient') and constrains scope to 'this mailbox', so the action is unambiguous. It implicitly separates itself from the add-side sibling (voidmail_request_recipient) by noting that adding back requires approval, but never names that sibling outright, so it falls just short of a 5.
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?
It gives clear operational context: revocation takes effect immediately and needs no owner approval, while re-adding does. That tells the agent when this path is preferable to the request/approval flow, though it stops short of explicit 'use X instead of Y' routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.