gmail_delete_filter

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is carried by structured data. The description adds one genuinely new behavior: the operation is audited and records a reason. It does not say whether the delete is permanent or whether an admin permission is required.

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 with the destructive action and the audit trait front-loaded; no filler. It is arguably too terse rather than padded, which is a completeness problem rather than a verbosity one.

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 non-idempotent-looking yet destructive mutation with no output schema and zero schema coverage, the description covers the call mechanics but leaves gaps: permanence of deletion, how to discover filter_id, and the optional/defaulted nature of reason. Adequate to invoke correctly, not complete.

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%, so the description has to do the work, and it does name both parameters semantically ("by ID" for filter_id, "with reason" for reason). It omits that reason is optional with a default of "filter no longer needed" and the 3-500 character bounds, so it only partially compensates.

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 ("Deletes a Gmail filter") plus the keying mechanism ("by ID"), which separates it from gmail_create_filter and gmail_list_filters among the siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming those alternatives, but the action is 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no pointer to gmail_list_filters as the way to obtain the required filter_id. The only guidance is implied by "by ID" (you must already know the identifier).

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