delete_draft

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the scope precondition, but says nothing about irreversibility, whether confirmation is required, permission needs, or what happens to the draft's content after deletion — significant gaps for a destructive operation.

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 short sentences, the action first and the scope constraint second, with zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the scope constraint is covered. However, for a destructive single-parameter tool with no annotations and no documented parameter, the omission of irreversibility and draft_id semantics leaves it only minimally sufficient.

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?

The single parameter draft_id has 0% schema description coverage and is never mentioned in the description, so nothing explains its format, where to obtain it, or whether it accepts an ID from list_messages or create_draft. The description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

"Radera ett utkast" gives a specific verb (delete) plus resource (draft), and the second sentence narrows scope to drafts and explicitly excludes received emails, which separates it from message-level siblings like move_message or read_message. It stops short of naming the sibling to use instead, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 states a clear applicability condition (only drafts) and an explicit exclusion (never received emails), which is real when/when-not guidance. It does not point to update_draft or create_draft as the alternative path when the target is not a draft, so routing is only partly complete.

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