delete_email_rule

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

The description flags the operation as a mutation ('[mutation]') and explicitly states it is irreversible and requires confirmation. This goes beyond the lack of annotations to inform the agent about the destructive nature, which is crucial for safe invocation.

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 concise—one line covering purpose, destructive warning, and confirmation requirement. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy. This front-loads critical information efficiently.

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?

The tool is simple (2 params, no output schema, no annotations). The description covers the key behavioral aspects (irreversibility, confirmation) but does not mention return values or error states. For a delete operation, this is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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?

The input schema already covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds value by explaining the confirm parameter's role ('pasar true para confirmar la ejecución'), but does not enhance the id parameter beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 ('Eliminar regla de email') and provides a Spanish verb-noun pair. It explicitly identifies the resource (regla de email) and the operation (delete). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_email_rule or update_email_rule, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 mentions that the action is irreversible ('no se puede deshacer') and requires confirmation ('pasar confirm=true para ejecutar'), which provides context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or suggest alternative tools (e.g., update_email_rule if modification is intended).

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