Delete Saved Draft

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

The annotations already declare destructive=true and idempotentHint=false, so the description is not carrying the safety burden. It adds real value beyond them: required scopes (mailbox.read, mailbox.drafts.write), asynchronous background completion, and the edge case that an in-flight send blocks deletion.

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?

Three short sentences with zero filler; the action, precondition, permission requirement, and behavioral caveat are front-loaded in that order.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers permissions, async completion, and the send-in-progress constraint. It omits whether deletion is reversible or what error surfaces on a precondition failure, but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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%, so draftId, If-Match, and mailbox_id are already documented in the schema. The description's note about in-progress sends is loosely related to the conditional-delete parameter but doesn't clarify its semantics or when to supply it.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Delete a saved draft'), which is unambiguous. It does not distinguish this from siblings like mailbox_send_draft or mailbox_update_draft, so an agent must infer the boundary from the name alone.

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 phrase 'only when the user asks' establishes an explicit precondition and implicitly cautions against proactive deletion. It doesn't name alternative actions (send, update, discard schedule), but the usage context is clear.

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