Delete fmsg 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. The description adds genuine behavioral value beyond that by disclosing that attachments are deleted along with the draft and by scoping the operation to unsent content.

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, no filler, with the primary action and its scope side-effect (attachments) leading. Every clause earns its place.

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 one-parameter destructive mutation with a full annotation set and an output schema, the definition is largely sufficient. It omits any note on required permissions or whether the deletion is recoverable, which would be the remaining behavioral gaps given the annotations already cover safety and idempotency.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ("the draft to delete"), so the schema already carries the meaning. The description adds no format, ID-source, or lookup guidance, leaving this at the baseline.

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 an unsent draft") and immediately bounds the target with "and its attachments." The restriction "Sent messages cannot be deleted" implicitly separates this from any message-level operation, though no sibling tool is named explicitly.

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?

Gives a clear condition for use (unsent drafts) and a clear exclusion (sent messages). It doesn't point to an alternative route for removing sent content, but no sibling tool offers that, so the guidance is effectively complete.

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