Delete an email draft from Microsoft 365 only after explicit user approval. Set confirm=true and provide draft_id to permanently remove it.
Delete a draft. Destructive, so confirm=true is required — set it only after the human has explicitly approved deleting this specific draft.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirm | No | ||
| draft_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly labels the operation as 'Destructive' and explains the confirmation requirement and human-approval condition. While it implies irreversibility through the word 'destructive', it does not explicitly state that the deletion is permanent or mention any side effects. However, it covers the critical safety behavior well.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Delete a draft') and immediately provides a critical warning about the confirmation flag. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.
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 simple delete operation, the description adequately covers the essential behavioral aspects: destructive nature, confirmation requirement, and human-approval condition. The presence of an output schema (not shown) likely covers return values and errors. While it could explicitly state that deletion is irreversible, 'destructive' effectively communicates this. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly.
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 schema provides no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It adds crucial meaning to the confirm parameter by stating it is required and only to be set after human approval, which the schema does not convey. The other parameter, draft_id, is self-explanatory given the tool's purpose, so the description's contribution is sufficient.
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?
The description clearly states the operation as 'Delete a draft' with a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like iris_create_draft, iris_update_draft, and iris_list_drafts, which involve different actions. No ambiguity exists about what the tool does.
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 explicitly provides usage guidance: confirm=true is required and should only be set after human approval. This tells the agent when it is appropriate to invoke the tool and under what conditions, effectively differentiating it from non-destructive alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.