delete_filter

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states that deleting a filter 'does not touch mail it already acted on,' which is the main non-obvious safety-relevant behavior. It does not discuss permissions or reversibility, but the key destructive-consequence ambiguity is resolved.

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 with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, the clarifying behavioral note is in a parenthetical, and the id-source instruction is placed at the end. Every word earns its place.

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 two-parameter delete-by-id tool, the description plus schema fully cover what an agent needs: what to call, which account to use, which filter to delete, and where to get the id. No output schema means there is no return-value burden to document.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by telling the agent where to obtain filter_id values ('Get ids from list_filters'), going beyond the schema's simple 'Gmail filter id' label.

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 a Gmail filter by id.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_filters and create_filter by naming the action and the resource type. The parenthetical further clarifies what the tool does not do.

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?

Provides clear context by telling the agent to get filter ids from list_filters, which is directly actionable for selecting parameters. It does not explicitly discuss when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives like bulk_action, but the guidance is sufficient for the common workflow.

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