delete_filter

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the destructive action ('Delete') and the return value ({deleted: <id>}). However, it does not mention that deletion is permanent and irreversible, nor any authentication or permission requirements. These are meaningful behavioral attributes that a well-rounded description should include.

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 that front-loads the core action ('Delete a Gmail filter by id') and immediately follows with the return shape. There is zero wasted wording, making it highly efficient.

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 an output schema hint, the description covers the essential behavior and return format. It is missing edge-case handling (e.g., non-existent id) and permanence warning, but these are not critical for a simple delete. The description is complete enough for an agent to 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'by id' which indicates that filter_id is the identifier of the filter, adding minimal value over the bare schema. It does not explain the id format, where to obtain it, or any validation. This is adequate but not rich.

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 ('Delete'), a clear resource ('Gmail filter'), and the identifier ('by id'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_filter, list_filters, and create_filter, which handle retrieval and creation. The action and scope are 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?

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it requires an existing filter id obtained from list_filters or get_filter, nor does it suggest any exclusions. The user must infer usage solely from the tool name and description.

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