draft_delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses that the tool moves the draft to Trash (Deleted Messages), notes no recovery is expected, and specifies it does not send. This offers meaningful behavioral context beyond the bare action, though it does not cover error cases or side effects like what happens if the draft 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and resource, followed by a concise clarification of behavior. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the core action and behavior. The only minor gap is not mentioning what happens if the draft_id is invalid or missing, but this is likely covered by the output schema (which is present). Overall, adequate for an agent to call 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 already fully documents the single parameter draft_id with the description 'Existing draft to delete.' The tool description adds no new semantics about the parameter—it just repeats 'existing draft' from the schema. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the description does not enhance understanding of the 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?

The description clearly states the action (delete/move to trash), the resource (draft), and adds specificity ('existing draft') distinguishing it from other delete tools like delete_messages or delete_mailbox. The mention of 'No send, no recovery' further clarifies scope.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative delete tools like delete_messages or delete_template. The description implies it is for drafts, but does not explicitly say 'use this instead of delete_messages when targeting drafts' or provide any conditions. The agent must infer from the tool name.

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