gmail_delete_draft

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

Annotations already convey the destructive (destructiveHint=true) and mutating (readOnlyHint=false) nature, so the description doesn't need to repeat those. It adds little beyond the literal 'Discard' action and doesn't disclose whether the deletion is permanent or what happens to the associated message. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 core description is one short front-loaded sentence, which is appropriately concise for a simple tool. The 'Args:' block is redundant with the input schema and adds no new information, preventing a perfect score.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one required parameter), the presence of an output schema, and annotations covering destructive and idempotent behavior, the description is mostly complete. It could add practical context such as where to obtain a draft_id or confirm irreversibility, but these are minor for a one-action delete tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden for parameter meaning, but 'draft_id: Draft to delete' only restates the parameter's purpose in near-tautological terms. It doesn't explain the expected ID format, how to obtain it (e.g., from gmail_list_drafts), or any constraints beyond the schema's required flag.

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 uses a specific verb ('Discard') and resource ('a draft'), clearly identifying the operation as deleting a draft. It is not a tautology because 'Discard' conveys the action beyond the tool name, and the draft scope separates it from message deletion tools. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like gmail_trash or gmail_delete_label, so it stops short of a 5.

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 description gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives; it doesn't mention that gmail_trash handles messages or that gmail_update_draft edits existing drafts before deletion. 'Discard a draft' is a bare imperative with no exclusions, prerequisites, or context.

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