Delete Gmail Label

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true), the description adds valuable behavioral context: deleting a label removes it from all messages but does not delete the messages. This is important side-effect information not covered by the annotations.

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 compact and well-structured: it leads with the purpose, then explains the parameter, notes a critical caveat, and provides two clear usage examples. 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?

For a simple single-parameter mutation tool, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, how to get the parameter, key behavioral caveats, and example usage. The annotations and full schema coverage fill in the remaining safety details.

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 input schema already fully describes the single parameter ('label_id') with 100% coverage. The description adds extra value by instructing users to use gmail_list_labels to find IDs, which is helpful usage guidance beyond the schema.

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 user-created label from Gmail, using a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly saying system labels cannot be deleted and by focusing on deletion rather than listing, creating, or modifying labels.

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 provides clear usage context: it explains when to use the tool with two practical examples. It also notes a key constraint (system labels cannot be deleted) which helps decide when not to use it, though it doesn't explicitly mention alternative tools for non-deletion operations.

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