delete_gmail_filter

Does 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 indicates deletion (destructive) but does not mention permanent deletion, idempotency, error behavior if the filter is not found, or any required authentication steps. The return value is noted, but no other behavioral traits are disclosed.

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 concise and structured: a purpose sentence followed by clearly formatted Args and Returns sections. It is front-loaded with the key action and avoids unnecessary wording. Slight redundancy with the schema for filter_id, but overall efficient.

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 simple 2-parameter delete tool, the description is minimally adequate. It includes the return type and parameter lists, but lacks context about the need to first list filters to obtain the ID, potential side effects, or when this tool is preferred over other filter management tools. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return details, but more contextual guidance would improve completeness.

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% because user_google_email lacks a description in the schema. The description adds meaning for user_google_email ('The user's Google email address. Required.') and repeats the filter_id description from the schema. This compensates partially for the gap but does not fully enrich the parameter semantics.

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 clearly states 'Deletes a Gmail filter by ID,' using a specific verb ('Deletes') and resource ('Gmail filter'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_gmail_filters and create_gmail_filter.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as needing to obtain the filter ID from list_gmail_filters, or situations where create_gmail_filter would be more appropriate. The description simply states the action without context or prerequisites.

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