delete-rule

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully bears the transparency burden. It clearly states the tool is destructive ('the rule is removed permanently'), requires explicit user confirmation, and suggests a prerequisite step (list-rules). It also describes the return value (confirmation). This fully discloses behavioral impact.

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?

Extremely concise: four short, front-loaded sections covering use, return, alternatives, and safety. Every sentence adds value with zero redundancy.

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 one-parameter delete tool with no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, return, and safety. However, it lacks information about error cases (e.g., behavior if rule does not exist) or idempotency. The output schema exists but is not described; the description says 'returns a confirmation' which is sufficient. Overall, very good but not fully exhaustive.

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 should add parameter meaning. It mentions 'by name' and advises using list-rules to confirm the exact name, implying case-sensitive exact match. However, it does not directly describe the 'name' parameter's format or constraints beyond the schema (minLength 1). The extra guidance helps but is indirect.

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 permanently removes a Mail rule by name, and explicitly distinguishes it from disable-rule (pause) and create-rule. The verb 'deleting' and the resource 'Mail rule' are specific and unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use ('permanently removing a Mail rule') and when-not-to-use ('only want to pause it' or 'create one') with named alternatives (disable-rule, create-rule). Also advises to use list-rules first for confirmation.

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