gmail_delete_filter

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention that deletion is permanent, the need for filter_id, or any side effects on existing messages. The word 'Delete' implies destructiveness but lacks specifics.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient and well-structured for a simple action, though its brevity borders on under-specification.

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 absence of annotations and minimal schema descriptions, this one-sentence description is insufficient for a deletion tool. It does not address prerequisites, success/failure behavior, or how filter_id relates to Gmail filters.

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 for filter_id is 0%, and the description does not mention the parameter at all. It fails to explain what filter_id represents or how to obtain it, leaving the agent without necessary semantic information.

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 'Delete a Gmail filter.' clearly states the action (delete) and the resource (Gmail filter), distinguishing it from sibling tools like gmail_create_filter and gmail_delete_label.

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 is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as gmail_list_filters or gmail_create_filter. There are no prerequisites, context, or examples given.

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