label-delete

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure responsibility. It explicitly warns that deletion is permanent and irreversible, and that system labels will not work. It does not mention side effects on messages, but the core risk is well covered.

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 concise sentences: the first states the action and severity, the second adds the critical system-label exclusion. Every word earns its place, and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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 single-required-parameter tool with an output schema and sibling context, the description supplies the essential operational constraints: irreversible deletion and the inability to delete system labels. It does not explain where label IDs come from, but that is reasonably implied by sibling tools like labels-list.

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 sole parameter, ids, is already fully described in the input schema as 'Gmail label IDs to delete.' The description adds little param-specific meaning beyond schema coverage, 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Delete Gmail labels permanently.' The irreversibility warning adds important scope, and the tool is immediately distinguishable from label-add, labels-list, and message-move-to-trash.

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?

It clearly communicates when not to use the tool: system labels like INBOX and SENT cannot be deleted. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative sibling tools or broader conditions for when deletion is appropriate, so it lacks a full alternatives-based guideline.

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