gmail_delete_label

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses key behavioral traits: messages keep existing and only lose the label, system labels are forbidden, and full scope is required. This is strong for a delete operation, though it doesn't mention return values or error scenarios.

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 three short sentences, front-loaded with the main action ('Delete a Gmail label'), and every sentence adds value without 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 delete tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is complete enough: it states what it does, what it doesn't do to messages, restrictions on system labels, and permission requirements. Sibling tools show related operations, but the uniqueness is clear.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning about parameters beyond the schema; for example, it doesn't explain the 'confirm' parameter, but the schema already does.

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 uses a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('a Gmail label'), clearly stating the action. It also adds distinguishing nuances: messages are not deleted, only the label is removed, and system labels cannot be deleted, which differentiates it from tools like gmail_trash or gmail_modify_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?

Provides clear context, including that system labels cannot be deleted and that the operation requires full scope. It implicitly guides against using this tool when message deletion is intended by stating messages are not deleted. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools like gmail_create_label or gmail_modify_labels.

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