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 of behavioral disclosure. It merely says 'Delete a draft.' It does not state that deletion is permanent, cannot be undone, whether ownership or permissions are required, or what happens to related resources. The destructive nature is implied by the verb but not elaborated.

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 with no filler or redundancy. Every word earns its place. It is appropriately sized for such a simple tool, though it is perhaps too terse to be considered excellent.

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 low-complexity tool with fully documentd parameters and no output schema, 'Delete a draft.' is minimally viable. However, because there are no annotations and the operation is destructive, the description would be more complete if it disclosed irreversibility or side effects. This is a clear but not severe gap.

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?

All three parameters are documented in the schema with meaningful examples: id is described as coming from list_drafts, and domain/localPart are illustrated with example.com and hello@example.com. The description adds no parameter-level information, but because schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a draft.' It is immediately clear what this tool does and how it differs from the sibling draft-related tools like list_drafts, get_draft, create_draft, and update_draft. No ambiguity remains about the intended operation.

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 offers no guidance on when this tool should be used instead of alternatives, such as update_draft or send_email. There are no stated preconditions, no mention of irreversibility, and no explicit 'use this when...' context. Agents must infer entirely from the name.

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