Delete forwarder

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation is known. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by stating that forwarding stops immediately, which clarifies the direct consequence of the operation.

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 short and front-loaded. The first sentence is somewhat redundant with the tool title, but the second sentence adds meaningful behavioral detail. Overall, it is efficient and readable.

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 operation with annotations covering destructive and idempotent behavior, the description is sufficient. It lacks explicit guidance on retrieving the forwarderId, but the schema and sibling tool context (mail_listForwardersV1) make that discoverable.

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 schema already fully documents the only parameter 'forwarderId' with a clear description ('Forwarder resource ID'). The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, 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?

States a specific action ('Delete a forwarder') and clearly identifies the resource being operated on. The added effect ('mailbox stops forwarding messages') distinguishes it from other mail deletion tools like mail_deleteAliasV1 or mail_deleteMailboxV1.

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 implies its use case: deleting a forwarder when its forwarding behavior is no longer desired. However, it does not explicitly mention when to avoid using it or point to alternatives such as mail_updateForwarderKeepCopySettingV1 for modifying forwarder behavior instead.

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