Deletes the current draft using a draft ID, removing it from the mailbox so agents can clean up unfinished messages.
Delete the current draft.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user_id | No | ||
| draft_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| discarded | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description implies a destructive action but provides no details on side effects, irreversibility, permissions, or error conditions. Without annotations, this is insufficient for an AI agent to understand implications.
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?
Single sentence, concise. No unnecessary words. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices clarity. Still, it earns points for brevity.
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?
Despite having an output schema, the description lacks context about the operation's impact (e.g., permanent deletion). It does not address potential errors or prerequisites, leaving the agent poorly informed.
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%. The description does not explain any parameter (e.g., purpose of user_id, format of draft_id). Agent must rely solely on parameter names and types, which is inadequate.
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?
Description clearly states the verb 'Delete' and resource 'draft', which is straightforward. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like gmail_discard_draft or gmail_composer.save_draft, so it lacks full differentiation.
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 versus alternatives (e.g., gmail_discard_draft). No prerequisites or use cases mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.