Remove Inbox Draft

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, and the description adds substantial context beyond that: it explains that the draft was never sent, that no mail or thread is touched, and that composed content is irreversibly discarded. It also imposes a confirmation requirement, which is behavioral detail the annotations cannot convey.

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 action and the safety warning, which is appropriate for a destructive tool. However, the confirmation requirement is restated across several sentences (double-check, warn about irreversibility, confirm again), introducing mild redundancy.

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 destructive two-param tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, preconditions, destructive consequences, and the source of the required ID. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it safely 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% and both params are fully documented in the schema, including the inboxId caveat about not being the Resend receiving address. The description only adds a pointer to list-inbox-drafts for the draftId, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Remove) and resource (a draft by ID from a Resend inbox), and clarifies scope by noting the draft was never sent so no mail or thread is affected. This cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like remove-inbox-thread, send-inbox-draft, and update-inbox-draft.

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?

Explicitly states the precondition (user must explicitly confirm after a double-check), the required confirmation behavior, and names the sibling tool (list-inbox-drafts) for obtaining the ID. This is the strongest form of when/when-not guidance.

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