delete_draft

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

Beyond the 'destructiveHint' annotation, the description adds that the deletion is permanent and irreversible, and clarifies it only affects local SQLite storage, not the IMAP folder. This gives full behavioral context.

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 concise with three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the action, recommending usage, and clarifying limitations. No unnecessary words.

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?

The description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, when to use, what it doesn't do, and irreversibility. With a single parameter fully documented, no output schema needed, this is complete.

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 only parameter, draftId, is fully described in the schema with examples of where it comes from. The description does not add further parameter details, but schema coverage is 100%, so a baseline score 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 clearly states 'Permanently delete a locally saved draft from SQLite,' specifying the action, resource, and context. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like delete_thread and trash_email by focusing on local drafts and noting it does not affect the IMAP folder.

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 explicitly advises when to use ('Use to discard a draft you no longer need') and when not to use ('Does NOT remove a matching draft from the Proton Drafts IMAP folder — that requires a separate mailbox action'), providing clear guidance.

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