yahoo_delete_mail

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that the default is a reversible move to Trash, that permanent=true performs \Deleted + expunge in place and is IRREVERSIBLE, and it flags that ranges/lists are refused. That is exactly the safety context annotations would otherwise supply.

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 one-line summary is front-loaded with the destructive-mode default before any argument detail, and each Args line adds distinct information with no repetition of the schema's titles.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be described; with the destructive-path behavior, account resolution rule, and parameter constraints all covered, an agent has everything needed to call this mutation safely.

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%, so the description must compensate for all four parameters — and it does, giving each a meaning, a default, and for msg_id a provenance note plus an explicit constraint ('one UID, ranges and lists are refused') that the schema does not convey.

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 verb and resource ('Delete a single message, addressed by UID') and scopes it to exactly one message, which separates it from siblings like yahoo_empty_folder and yahoo_move_mail without opening their schemas.

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?

Explicitly contrasts the two modes (default move-to-Trash vs permanent expunge) and tells the caller where msg_id comes from (yahoo_list_mail / yahoo_search_mail), but it never names an alternative tool for related intents such as moving rather than deleting.

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