gmail_delete_draft

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the confirm=true prerequisite and flags the operation as destructive/outward-facing. It does not say whether the deletion is reversible (e.g., via gmail_undo), what happens to the draft afterward, or what the call returns, 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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and target, followed by the hard confirm requirement. No filler or 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 4-param destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential prerequisites (confirm and index provenance) but omits the outcome of the call, reversibility, and the distinction from sibling delete/discard tools.

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%, so each parameter is already documented, establishing a baseline of 3. The description reinforces that index and query should correspond to a prior gmail.drafts call but adds no new syntax or constraints beyond the schema.

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 and resource ('Delete (discard) a draft') and ties the target to a prior gmail.drafts listing. It does not differentiate itself from ambiguous siblings such as gmail_discard, gmail_trash, or gmail_delete_forever, which an agent could easily confuse with this tool.

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 implies a workflow (get the index from gmail.drafts, possibly reuse the same query) and warns that confirm=true is required. It gives no explicit when-not guidance or comparison against the other draft/deletion siblings, leaving the agent to infer which delete variant to pick.

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