gmail_delete_label

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states the action without explaining consequences (e.g., whether the label is removed from messages, idempotency, permission requirements, or error handling).

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 a single sentence, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it could be more informative without sacrificing brevity. It meets the minimum but does not excel.

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 simplicity of the tool (single parameter, no output schema), the description is barely adequate. It tells the purpose but lacks details about behavior, side effects, or when deletion is appropriate. Sibling tools show this is a mutation, but more context is needed.

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% (labelId is described as 'The label ID to delete'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Delete a Gmail label' clearly states the verb (Delete) and resource (Gmail label). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like gmail_create_label or gmail_update_label, but does not elaborate on the difference between label types (e.g., system vs user labels).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like gmail_update_label or gmail_trash. It does not mention prerequisites, such as ensuring the label exists or that system labels cannot be deleted.

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