Delete a draft email from your account by providing its ID. Specify an account when multiple are connected.
Delete a draft.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| draftId | Yes | ||
| accountId | No | Account to operate on. Optional when exactly one account is connected. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.11.1Output schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"v0.11.0Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "data": {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "deleted": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "deleted"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "data"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The destructiveHint=true annotation already communicates that this is an irreversible mutation, so the description adds almost nothing behavioral. It does not state what gets removed, whether deletion is permanent or recoverable, or any permission requirements.
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?
A single short sentence with no waste, which is appropriately sized. But brevity here reflects under-specification rather than efficient communication, so it earns only a middling score.
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?
With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, but the description still omits usage context and leaves the required draftId undocumented while the destructive action is described only by the annotation. Incomplete for a mutation tool.
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 only 50%: accountId is documented in the schema but draftId has no description at all. The description adds no parameter meaning, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented required identifier.
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?
States a specific verb and resource (delete a draft), so the basic action is unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate scope from siblings like update_draft or create_draft beyond the verb, and reads largely as a restatement of the tool name.
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 no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. There is no hint that update_draft should be used instead when modifying an existing draft, leaving the agent to infer selection from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.