mail_draft_discardClear an unsent in-memory draft by its ID from the current MCP process. Use this to discard a draft without affecting emails stored in the IMAP Drafts folder.
Use this to remove an unsent in-memory draft from this MCP process. This does not delete an IMAP Drafts message.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| draftId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructive and idempotent behavior, so the description adds value by specifying that the operation only affects an unsent in-memory draft within this MCP process and has no server-side IMAP deletion effect. That meaningfully clarifies side-effect scope.
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?
Two concise sentences with no filler. The primary usage instruction is front-loaded, and the important boundary condition is stated immediately after.
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 simplicity—one required parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering destructive/idempotent behavior—the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly. The in-memory-only distinction resolves the main potential confusion.
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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explicitly state that draftId identifies the draft to discard. The parameter name is self-explanatory and the UUID format helps, but the description should have compensated for the missing schema-level documentation.
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?
States a precise verb ('remove'), resource ('unsent in-memory draft'), and scope ('from this MCP process'). The second sentence explicitly distinguishes this from deleting an IMAP Drafts message, which helps separate it from related mail deletion tools.
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 opens with 'Use this to remove...', giving a clear call scenario, and clarifies that this does not delete an IMAP Drafts message, which serves as a useful exclusion. It does not name sibling alternatives explicitly, but the intended context is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.