Permanently delete a Gmail draft by specifying account and draft ID, with explicit confirmation to prevent accidental loss.
Permanently delete a Gmail draft. Requires confirm: true — a deleted draft does not go to Trash and cannot be recovered.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | Yes | Configured Gmail account alias, e.g. work, personal, support. | |
| confirm | No | Must be true to actually delete. | |
| draftId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the irreversible nature of deletion and non-recovery, which is the critical behavioral trait. It does not mention side effects like authentication, but that is less relevant for a delete 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?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the action and includes the essential warning about permanence. There is 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?
For a simple delete operation with no output schema, the description covers the action, the confirm requirement, and the irreversible consequence. It does not describe failure behavior, but that is a minor gap given the simplicity.
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 67% (two of three parameters have descriptions). The description reinforces the 'confirm: true' requirement, but this is already present in the schema. It adds no significant new meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline of 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?
The description clearly states the specific verb 'delete' and resource 'Gmail draft', and adds 'Permanently' to clarify scope. This distinguishes it from sibling draft operations like gmail_send_draft and gmail_update_draft, making the purpose unambiguous.
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 explicitly requires 'confirm: true' and warns that deletion is permanent and unrecoverable, providing clear usage context. It does not mention alternatives, but this is a unique operation with no direct sibling, so the guidance is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.