Delete a draft

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

Although destructiveHint=true already signals danger, the description adds critical context: deletion is permanent, there is no undo, drafts do not go to trash, and the operation returns empty on success. This goes well beyond the annotation.

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?

Two highly informative sentences, front-loaded with 'PERMANENTLY' to emphasize the key trait. Every clause earns its place: irreversibility, no-trash behavior, confirmation guidance, and return value.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with annotations and no output schema, the description provides everything needed: the action, the risk, the safety precondition, and the success response. No significant information is missing.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage and a clear draft_id description citing list_drafts or create_draft output, the schema already fully documents the parameter. The description adds no further parameter semantics, but none are needed.

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: 'PERMANENTLY deletes a draft'. It also distinguishes this tool from siblings like manage_trash by clarifying drafts skip the trash, making the tool's unique purpose 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?

It gives an explicit precondition: 'Confirm with get_draft before deleting anything the user might still want.' It also explains why alternatives like manage_trash cannot recover the draft, which helps the agent decide when and how to use the tool.

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