Delete draft

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether the deletion is permanent or recoverable, whether a confirmation step is expected, or what happens to a missing/already-deleted draft. With annotations carrying the load, this is thin but not contradictory.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, so it is structurally clean. But the brevity comes from under-specification rather than tight writing — the one sentence carries almost no information beyond the name.

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?

This is a destructive mutation on a draft, and the output schema means return values need not be explained. Still, the description omits permanence/recoverability, error behavior for unknown draft IDs, and any relationship to the trash/restore siblings — information an agent needs before invoking an irreversible-sounding operation.

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 coverage is only 50%: accountId is documented in the schema, but draftId has no description anywhere. The description does not compensate by explaining that draftId comes from list_drafts/get_draft or what the accountId fallback behavior means in practice. For a required identifier parameter, this is a real gap.

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?

"Delete a draft" names a specific verb and resource, so the basic action is unambiguous. However, it essentially restates the tool name and title without adding any scope detail (e.g., permanent deletion vs. trashing, which draft source it targets), leaving it at the minimum-viable level.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives. The sibling set includes trash_emails, update_draft, and get_draft, and the description does not clarify whether deleting a draft is permanent or whether trashing is a separate path. No exclusions or preconditions are stated.

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