delete-draft

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It declares the tool as destructive, requires explicit user confirmation, and explains the internal locating logic (account, mailbox, native message id). Lacks details on error cases (e.g., draft not found) but sufficiently covers main behavioral traits.

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 sentences, each earning its place: use-case, return values, exclusions, safety. Front-loaded with 'Use when'. No fluff 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?

Given one parameter, safety warning, and mentioned return values (draft_id, subject), the description is nearly complete. It could mention prerequisites (from list-drafts/read-draft) more explicitly, but the implied workflow is clear. Output schema existence reduces burden on description.

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?

The only parameter draft_id is described only by the schema's pattern. The description does not explain its purpose, origin, or format beyond the schema. With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate but fails to add any meaningful context.

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 clearly states the tool deletes an Apple Mail draft by draft_id, distinguishing it from deleting ordinary mail via the sibling tool delete-message. It specifies the verb 'delete' and resource 'draft', and the 'Use when' phrase sets clear scope.

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?

Explicitly provides when to use ('moving one inspected Apple Mail draft to Trash'), when not to use ('deleting ordinary mail'), and recommends an alternative tool (delete-message). Also implies appropriate preceding step (read-draft).

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