Permanently deletes a specified Gmail draft by ID without affecting sent mail. Requires a reason, and the destructive action is audited for accountability.
Permanently deletes a Gmail draft (drafts only — never touches sent mail). Requires a reason. Audited as destructive.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reason | Yes | Mandatory explanation for deleting this draft | |
| draft_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, yet the description still adds real context: deletion is permanent/irreversible, it is scoped strictly to drafts, and the action is audited. It does not cover permission requirements or behavior when the draft_id does not exist.
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?
Three short sentences with the destructive scope front-loaded and zero redundant text. Every clause carries distinct information: permanence, scope, required reason, and audit status.
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 two-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: irreversibility, blast radius, mandatory justification, and auditability. Missing only error/permission behavior and how to obtain a valid draft_id.
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 50%: 'reason' is documented in the schema (mandatory explanation), while 'draft_id' has no description anywhere. The description reinforces the mandatory reason but adds nothing about draft_id format or provenance, so it 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Permanently deletes a Gmail draft') plus an explicit scope boundary ('drafts only — never touches sent mail'). It does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as gmail_trash_message or gmail_delete_filter, so the agent must infer that this is the hard-delete path for drafts.
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?
'drafts only' is an implied exclusion and 'Requires a reason' flags a prerequisite, which gives partial when-to-use signal. However, there is no explicit routing against gmail_trash_message (soft delete) or guidance to fetch the draft via gmail_get_draft/gmail_list_drafts first.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.