delete_email

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose the destructive nature: trash or permanent delete. However, it stops short of explaining recovery semantics, authentication, or what happens if permanent deletion fails; it also relies on the schema to clarify the default.

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?

A single sentence that captures the tool's behavior with no filler. It is front-loaded with the primary action and wastes no tokens.

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 low-complexity tool with fully documented parameters, this description plus the schema is enough to understand invocation. It could mention return values or error behavior, but the absence of an output schema and the simplicity of the action make the description reasonably complete.

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 100%, with the schema already explaining uid, folder, and permanent. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond restating the trash/permanent distinction, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 Turkish description states a concrete action: moving an email to the trash or permanently deleting it, so an agent can tell what the tool does. It is clear about the resource (email) and the two supported outcomes, though it does not explicitly contrast this with the sibling move_email tool.

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 guidance about when to use delete_email versus move_email or other siblings, nor any note about prerequisites or exclusions. The description only states what happens, not when this tool is the right choice.

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