delete_messages

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

The description adds critical context beyond annotations: messages always go to Trash, the 'permanent' parameter is currently a no-op and deprecated, and behavior matches sibling delete tools. This complements the destructiveHint=true annotation with practical details.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core action. The additional note about user confirmation is useful but could be more structured. Still, every sentence earns its place.

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 the presence of annotations, full schema, and output schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's behavior: it explains the Trash behavior, no-op permanent parameter, and confirmation requirement. No further gaps.

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?

Input schema covers all 4 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds value by clarifying that 'permanent' is a no-op, which is not evident from the schema alone. Baseline 3, plus extra context justifies 4.

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 starts with 'Delete messages (always moves to the account's Trash mailbox)', clearly stating the action and specificity (moves to Trash). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_draft, delete_mailbox, etc.

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 notes that the tool is 'Destructive: gated behind user confirmation via MCP elicitation (issue #239)', which provides usage guidance about requiring user confirmation. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide alternatives.

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