delete_draft

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action is permanent and scoped to drafts only, but lacks details on authentication, rate limits, error states, or irreversibility beyond 'permanently'.

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 concise sentences front-load the multi-account context and action. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

Given no output schema and simple function, the description covers the basic purpose and a use case. However, it omits error handling (e.g., invalid draftId) and prerequisites for obtaining draftId.

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 50% (account described, draftId not). The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond the schema, missing an opportunity to explain draftId's origin or format.

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 tool deletes a draft permanently and specifies it is for drafts the user rejected, distinguishing it from sent mail. Among siblings like create_draft and send_draft, the purpose 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?

It provides a specific use case ('discard a draft the user rejected') and clarifies it does not affect sent mail, giving context for when to use. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as using trash_message for sent messages.

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