gmail_discard_draft

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions deletion, but does not address permanence, authentication requirements, or side effects (e.g., whether the draft is permanently lost). This is insufficient for a destructive action.

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 a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the key action. However, it lacks necessary elaboration, making it underspecified. It is efficient but not sufficiently informative.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, destructive, output schema exists but not described), the description is too minimal. It fails to explain the output, error handling, or usage context. Sibling tools suggest a rich ecosystem, but this description isolates the tool without contextual connections.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain both parameters. It clarifies draft_id via 'by id', but does not mention user_id at all, leaving its purpose ambiguous. The default value is not explained.

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 clearly states the action (Delete) and resource (Gmail draft) and the method (by id). However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool gmail_composer.discard, which may perform a similar action.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like gmail_composer.discard or context regarding prerequisites. The description only states the core action without usage context.

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