email_draft

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

No annotations are given, so the description must convey behavior. It states it creates a draft but does not disclose side effects, permissions needed, or what the response contains. The optional reply draft feature lacks a mechanism in the schema, creating ambiguity.

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 brief with two sentences, but could be more informative about the reply draft feature. It is not verbose, but some relevant information is omitted.

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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain the return value or side effects. It does not mention what is returned (e.g., draft ID, status) or how to use the reply draft feature with existing emails.

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?

All five parameters are described in the input schema, but the description implies a 'reply draft' capability without a corresponding parameter to specify the parent email. This misalignment between description and schema reduces clarity.

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 creates a draft email and optionally as a reply draft, using the verb 'Create' and specifying the resource. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like email_reply or email_send_draft, leaving potential confusion about when to use this tool instead.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as email_reply or email_send. The description does not mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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