Delete email draft

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Delete a draft email' and does not mention whether deletion is permanent, reversible, or scoped to an account. The agent is left without information about side effects, error conditions, or what happens to associated attachments or messages.

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 short and front-loaded, with no wasted words. However, it is essentially a restatement of the tool title and lacks the substance that would make the conciseness genuinely useful. It is not overly verbose, but it is also under-specified.

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 operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides minimal context. It does not explain irreversibility, account handling, or which sibling tools are appropriate alternatives. An agent has only the parameter names to work with, which is insufficient for confident invocation.

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 input schema already describes both parameters ('Draft ID' and 'Account nickname to use') with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, but because the schema is complete, 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a draft email.' It is clear and unambiguous about the operation. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from related Gmail draft tools beyond the action itself, so it stops short of the top score.

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 tool versus alternatives, such as google_gmail_delete, google_gmail_trash, or other draft operations. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided. The description only restates the action without helping an agent decide between sibling tools.

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