yahoo_empty_folder

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the destructive mechanism, irreversibility, and the critical default-safe behavior (confirm=False returns a would-purge count and deletes nothing). This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before invoking a destructive tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the destructive action and safety note, then a well-organized Args block. The Args section partly restates schema field names, but since schema coverage is 0% that repetition is load-bearing rather than wasteful; a slightly leaner phrasing would be marginally better.

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 spelled out, and the description still explains the meaningful return case (the dry-run count). Combined with full parameter and safety coverage for a destructive 3-param tool, nothing an agent needs is missing.

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, and it documents all three parameters: folder with examples, confirm with its default/dry-run semantics, and account with its source (accounts.json) and default resolution. No parameter is left ambiguous.

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 ('PERMANENTLY delete ALL messages in a folder') plus the underlying mechanism (mark \Deleted + EXPUNGE), which no sibling describes. An agent can distinguish it from yahoo_delete_mail or yahoo_move_mail from the description alone.

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 scopes intended targets ('Intended for Bulk (spam) and Trash') and flags irreversibility, giving clear when-to-use context. It does not name an alternative tool (e.g. yahoo_delete_mail) or state when NOT to use this versus a selective delete, so it falls short of a 5.

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