google_gmail_labels_deleteDelete a Gmail label by providing its label ID. Removes the label from your Gmail account to organize or clean up your mailbox.
Delete a Gmail label.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Label ID. | |
| account | No | Account nickname to use. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.30Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states only the action ('Delete'), but does not disclose that deletion is permanent, that system labels may not be deletable, or that messages are not deleted. This leaves important side effects undisclosed.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant words; it is efficiently structured. It sacrifices some helpful details, but as a concise statement it is well-formed.
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 tool is a destructive Gmail operation with no annotations or output schema, yet the description omits critical context like irreversible deletion, the fact that only custom labels can be deleted, and the relationship between labels and messages. An agent has enough to identify the tool but not enough to anticipate failures or side effects.
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 100% (id as 'Label ID', account as 'Account nickname'), so the schema already documents the parameters. The description adds no additional meaning, such as how to find the label ID or whether account is needed for multi-account setups, so baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Delete') and a concrete resource ('Gmail label'), making the tool's function immediately understandable. It is clear enough to be distinguished from sibling delete tools by resource type, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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 offers no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as google_gmail_delete or google_gmail_trash, and no mention of prerequisites or situations to avoid. The only usage signal is implied by the verb and resource.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.