email_delete

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

The description discloses the two-step process (mark + expunge) and warns that the action cannot be undone. However, it omits behavioral details like permission requirements, impact on other folders, or whether it works on all IMAP servers. With no annotations, more depth is expected.

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 very concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the action. No unnecessary words. However, the use of Chinese may reduce clarity for some agents, and the brevity sacrifices useful context.

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?

Given no output schema, low schema coverage, and two parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return value, behavior when uids are invalid, or how expunge affects the folder. The note about irreversibility helps but is insufficient for full understanding.

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 description adds no information about parameters. 'uids' and 'folder' are not explained; the agent must rely solely on the schema, which has 0% description coverage. The meaning of 'uids' (message UIDs) and the role of 'folder' are left unclarified.

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: mark as \Deleted and expunge, which effectively permanently deletes emails. It distinguishes itself from siblings like email_mark (which only marks) and email_move_messages (which moves to trash). The note about irreversibility reinforces the purpose.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like email_mark or email_move_messages. Does not specify prerequisites, such as whether the emails must already be marked as deleted or if the folder parameter is required. The agent lacks context for appropriate selection.

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