delete_email

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. '删除' implies mutation, but the description never states whether deletion is permanent or reversible, whether permissions are required, or what happens if the ID does not exist — significant gaps for 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?

The text is short, front-loaded with the operation, and followed by the parameter list with zero filler. It is efficient, though the brevity reflects under-specification as much as tight writing.

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?

For a destructive, single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should disclose irreversibility, error behavior, and any permission requirements. None of that is present, leaving the agent unable to predict the consequences of calling it.

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 does describe the single parameter as '待删除邮件的唯一 ID'. However, it adds no format, source, or example detail beyond that minimal gloss, so the compensation is only partial.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('删除电子邮件') that unambiguously identifies the operation. It does not, however, distinguish itself from sibling tools like list_emails or send_email, nor clarify scope such as permanent deletion versus moving to trash.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing a message_id obtained from list_emails), and no warning about the destructive nature of the call. The agent receives only the bare operation name.

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