delete_draftDelete a Gmail draft by its draft ID, optionally targeting a specific account alias or email. Use it to remove unwanted drafts from connected mailboxes.
Delete a draft (by draftId from create_draft or list_drafts).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No | Account alias or email address. Omit to use the default account. No accounts connected yet. | |
| draftId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does 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 nothing about irreversibility, behavior on a missing draftId, or the effect of the optional account parameter — a meaningful gap for a destructive operation.
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?
A single short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the identifier provenance attached. No filler, though it is arguably too sparse for a destructive tool.
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 two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers identification but omits confirmation semantics, failure modes, and account scoping. Annotations carry the safety signal, so it is minimally viable rather than complete.
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 50%: the schema describes 'account' but leaves draftId bare. The description usefully explains where draftId comes from (create_draft, list_drafts), partially compensating, but says nothing about the account parameter or default-account fallback.
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+resource ('Delete a draft') and scopes it by naming the identifier type (draftId). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling reads/writes like create_draft or list_drafts, though it does not differentiate beyond the object type.
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 parenthetical implies a workflow (get draftId from create_draft or list_drafts first), which is useful routing context, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus leaving a draft alone, nor any preconditions stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.