delete_draft

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

Beyond annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description adds that the operation is recoverable from Trash but effectively one-way, and mentions no rate limit. This provides useful behavioral context.

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 succinct with three sentences, each adding value: purpose, lifecycle context, and additional notes. No wasted words.

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 delete action with full annotations and schema coverage, the description covers purpose, behavior, and special constraints. It lacks only a mention of idempotency, but annotations cover that.

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?

The schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add parameter details. The single parameter 'draft_id' is adequately described in the schema, and the description adds no further clarification.

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 'Delete (move to Trash) an existing draft,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like delete_messages or delete_mailbox by specifying it targets drafts.

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 provides context by calling it a 'Lifecycle endpoint for cancellation' and explaining the move to Trash. It implies when to use (to discard a draft) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like update_draft.

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