save_draft

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses only that the draft is stored server-side and not sent; it says nothing about required auth, which folder the draft lands in, idempotency on repeated saves, or whether an existing draft is overwritten.

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?

A single clean, front-loaded sentence with no waste, but for an 8-parameter mutation tool with no annotations the sizing is too terse to be 'appropriate' — the brevity is under-specification rather than economy.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but the definition is still incomplete: no annotations, zero parameter documentation, and no statement of auth requirements or draft destination for a write operation.

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 0% across 8 parameters, so the description must compensate and it does not — it never mentions to/cc/bcc, subject, body vs. html_body, from_address, or attachment_paths. An agent gets no guidance on field formats or on which of body/html_body takes precedence.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Save a ... draft') and adds a scope qualifier ('server-side ... without sending it') that separates it from send_message/reply_message. It does not differentiate itself from update_draft, the closest sibling, which is the one gap.

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?

'without sending it' implies the condition for choosing this over send_message, but the description never states when to use save_draft versus update_draft (new draft vs. existing draft) or any prerequisite. Usage is only weakly implied.

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