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

Annotations are all false and give little positive signal, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly states the tool does not send email and returns a draft plus a Promise confirmation link, which is meaningful non-obvious behavior. It does not say whether the draft is persisted or what the Promise link represents, but the core behavioral traits are disclosed.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core action, the no-send safety constraint, and the return value are all present and front-loaded. Every sentence 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?

Given the lack of an output schema and the unhelpful annotations, the description provides the key no-send invariant and a high-level return description, but it omits parameter semantics and does not clarify how this tool relates to create_follow_up. It is adequate for basic selection but leaves clear gaps for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description needed to compensate by explaining goal, context, personName, and commitmentId. It does not mention any parameter or their relationships, leaving the agent to infer meaning from property names alone. The names are somewhat self-explanatory, which prevents a score of 1, but the description adds no semantic value for parameters.

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 states a specific verb ('draft') and resource ('follow-up message') and immediately scopes the action as 'without sending it,' which distinguishes it from the sibling create_follow_up. The safety line reinforces that this is a non-sending draft tool, making its 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 provides clear context: use this when you need to produce a follow-up draft rather than send an email. The v1 safety instruction is an explicit when-not boundary. However, it does not name alternatives or give a fuller routing condition such as 'if sending is needed, use create_follow_up instead.'

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