delete_draft

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

Beyond annotations, the description adds that recovery is technically possible but the draft becomes non-editable, making it effectively one-way. It also notes no rate limit and local operation, providing 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 concise (4 sentences) and front-loads the main action. The second sentence ('Lifecycle endpoint for cancellation') adds slight redundancy but does not detract significantly.

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 simple tool with one parameter and existing annotations/output schema, the description covers the action, effective behavior, recovery, rate limit, and local operation, making it fully adequate.

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?

There is one parameter (draft_id) with schema coverage at 100%. The description does not add extra information about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline.

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 begins with 'Delete (move to Trash) an existing draft,' clearly stating the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_messages by specifying it's for 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 implies usage as a 'lifecycle endpoint for cancellation,' but does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives. However, the context of drafts versus messages provides clear guidance.

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