Closes the open Gmail compose window without sending and discards its text; set confirm=true to authorize this destructive action.
Close the compose window currently open WITHOUT sending it (its text is thrown away).
Requires confirm=true (outward-facing or destructive).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirm | No | Must be true: this action is outward-facing or destructive. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It clearly discloses the destructive effect that compose text is thrown away and flags the confirm requirement, but it does not discuss undo/recoverability or what happens if no compose window is open.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and consequence. Every sentence carries useful information with no filler.
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 one-parameter UI action with no output schema, the description is sufficient to invoke it correctly and understand the destructive consequence. It could be more complete by mentioning alternatives like saving as a draft or behavior when no compose window is open.
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%, and the single confirm parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description repeats that confirm=true is required but adds no additional parameter semantics 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: closing the currently open compose window. It also clarifies the key effect that it will not send and that the text is discarded, which distinguishes it from sending, though it does not explicitly name draft-saving or delete-draft alternatives.
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 a clear precondition: the compose window must currently be open, and confirm=true is required. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternative tools such as saving a draft.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.