hey_delete_draft

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds what those hints cannot express: the delete bypasses Trash, is immediate and irreversible, and there is no restore counterpart. It also discloses the return shape ({success, draftId, error?}) despite no output schema existing.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the destructive semantic and irreversibility, then return shape, then prerequisite. No filler and nothing repeated.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers effect (immediate, non-Trash), reversibility (none), return value, and how to obtain the ID. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it safely is missing.

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 100% and the schema already names the source of draftId, so the description's provenance note is largely redundant with structured data. It adds no format, validation, or ID-shape detail beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 applies for a single fully documented parameter.

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 delete a draft by ID') and immediately scopes it against the sibling set by noting there is no hey_restore_draft. An agent can distinguish this from hey_save_draft / hey_edit_draft without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly states the prerequisite path ('Use hey_list_emails(folder='drafts') first if you don't already have the draftId from hey_save_draft or hey_edit_draft'), and explicitly excludes the assumed undo path. Both when-to-use and when-not-to-rely-on-restore are covered.

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