delete_draft

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses permanence, absence of undo, and the exact success payload. It omits error/auth behavior (e.g., what happens with an invalid or already-deleted draft_id), which for a destructive operation would be worth a sentence.

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 action is stated first, followed by labeled Required/Returns/Workflow sections that are easy to scan. Every line adds information; there is no repetition or filler.

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 destructive tool with no output schema, the description supplies the action, the parameter source, the success return shape, and the irreversibility warning. Nothing essential for correct invocation 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?

Schema coverage is 0% (the single property has only a title), so the description must compensate, and it does by labeling draft_id as required and pointing to list_drafts as the source of a valid value. Format details of the ID string itself are not given, but the sourcing guidance is the practically useful part.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource scoped to Gmail's Drafts folder, and the 'permanently removes... No undo' clause distinguishes it from the softer trash_email sibling in the tool list. An agent can tell exactly what this does without opening the schema.

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 a concrete precondition ('Call list_drafts() first to confirm the draft_id') and a clear warning about irreversibility, which effectively signals when to be careful. It stops short of explicitly naming trash_email as the reversible alternative, so there is no full when-not routing.

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