Remove Inbox Draft

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds meaningful context beyond them: what exactly is destroyed ('everything written in it is thrown away'), what is NOT affected (no mail, no thread), and that the action is irreversible. This is exactly the kind of disclosure a destructive tool needs.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and impact, then the safety protocol. The double-check requirement is restated three times in slightly different words ('double-check with the user', 'irreversible', 'only use if the user explicitly confirms... after you double-check'), which costs some efficiency, but nothing is padded with filler.

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 purpose, blast radius, irreversibility, the confirmation protocol, and where to get the ID. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and safely; nothing material 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 description coverage is 100%, so both draftId and inboxId are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces where draftId comes from (list-inbox-drafts) but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, and never mentions inboxId. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource ('Remove a draft by ID from a Resend inbox') and immediately scopes it against sibling operations by clarifying the draft was never sent, so no mail and no thread is touched. An agent can distinguish this from remove-inbox-thread or send-inbox-draft without opening either schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use conditions: the agent MUST double-check with the user, reference the draft SUBJECT, warn about irreversibility, and only invoke after explicit user confirmation. It also routes the agent to list-inbox-drafts for obtaining the ID. This is textbook when/when-not guidance with a named prerequisite tool.

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