proofpoint_quarantine_delete

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

The description goes beyond annotations by adding critical behavioral details: 'IRREVERSIBLE,' 'cannot be undone,' 'remove the message from quarantine storage,' and the need for user confirmation. This enriches the destructiveHint annotation and provides actionable safety information.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with a warning, and every sentence contributes essential information. There is no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 a simple one-parameter destructive operation with annotations already covering safety indicators, the description is fully sufficient. It explains the irreversible nature, the storage impact, and the required user confirmation, which are the key contextual elements for such a tool.

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 fully describes the only parameter (message_id) with 100% coverage. The tool description does not add further semantic detail about the parameter, so it does not exceed the schema's baseline.

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 tool's function: 'Permanently delete a quarantined message.' The verb 'delete' and resource 'quarantined message' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like proofpoint_quarantine_list, proofpoint_quarantine_search, and proofpoint_quarantine_release.

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 provides clear usage context by warning 'DESTRUCTIVE — IRREVERSIBLE' and instructing 'Confirm with the user before invoking.' It does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., proofpoint_quarantine_release for non-destructive recovery), but the destructive nature makes the when-to-use context clear.

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