Delete a label

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description discloses a critical behavioral trait: 'Every message that carried it stays exactly where it is and simply loses the tag — no mail is deleted.' This adds important context that the destructive action is scoped to the label only, not the messages. The phrase 'GATED' also hints at a confirmation step, which aligns with the confirmed parameter.

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?

Three concise sentences front-load the purpose and then add necessary behavioral context. No filler or redundancy. Every sentence earns its place, including the 'GATED' marker which signals an important workflow constraint.

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?

The description is quite complete for a simple deletion tool: it explains the effect on messages, distinguishes labels from folders, and hints at gating. However, the 'GATED' term is ambiguous and the confirmed parameter is not explained, leaving some gaps. Still, it provides sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 describes label and dry_run, covering 67% of parameters. The description adds context for the label parameter by clarifying labels vs. folders, but it does not explain the confirmed parameter or how dry_run interacts with the gated confirmation. Since coverage is moderate and the description does not fully compensate, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Delete a label outright' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes this tool from folder operations by saying 'Labels only; folders are where messages live and are not deletable here.' This clearly differentiates from sibling tools like apply_label or bulk_delete_labels.

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 gives clear context on when to use this tool: for deleting labels, not folders. It explicitly notes that folders are not deletable here, implying a boundary. However, it does not mention alternatives like bulk_delete_labels for batch operations, so it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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