Deletes a Gmail filter by its ID without modifying any emails, so you can remove unwanted filter rules while keeping your messages intact.
Deletes a filter by ID. It does not touch any email.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | Yes | Email address or label of the account (see list_accounts). | |
| filter_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds a genuinely useful scoping fact — that no emails are affected — but says nothing about irreversibility, permissions, or whether the deletion is recoverable.
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?
Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded. Every clause carries information.
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 destructive two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: annotations carry the danger signal and the 'no emails touched' clause clarifies blast radius. It still leaves an agent without the filter_id source and without knowing whether deletion is permanent, both relevant before invoking a destructive call.
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%: 'account' is documented in the schema but 'filter_id' is undescribed. The description restates that deletion is by ID without explaining where to obtain a filter_id or what format it takes, so it does not compensate for the coverage 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?
The description states a specific verb ('Deletes') and resource ('a filter'), plus the lookup key ('by ID'), which cleanly separates it from create_filter and list_filters among the siblings. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.
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 delete a filter versus updating it, no prerequisite such as obtaining the filter_id via list_filters, and no mention of confirmation steps. Usage is only implied by the verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.