draft_delete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavioral traits: the operation is restricted to drafts, it is gated behind a feature flag, and it requires an explicit confirmation flag. It stops short of stating irreversibility or what happens on a failed precondition, which matters for a destructive operation.

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?

Three short sentences with zero filler; the action and its scope constraint are front-loaded before the requirements. Every sentence adds a distinct constraint.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the safety gating for this mutation is covered. What is missing is any statement about permanence/undo and failure behavior when the feature flag is off, which would round out a 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents confirm, draft_id, and account_id. The description only restates the confirm=true constraint already present in the schema and adds no format or default details. 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?

States a specific verb (Delete) and resource (draft), and the clause 'Only acts on drafts' bounds the scope so an agent can distinguish it from the broad message-deletion siblings like imap_delete_message and imap_bulk_delete. No ambiguity about what object is affected.

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 concrete preconditions for invocation (MAIL_DRAFTS_ENABLED=true and confirm=true), which tells the agent what must be true before calling. It does not, however, contrast itself with siblings such as draft_update or draft_send or state when-not-to-use.

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