Replaces an existing email draft with new recipients, subject, and body by specifying the draft's UID and folder; requires confirmation to overwrite.
Replace an existing draft. Requires confirm_replace=true.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cc | No | ||
| to | Yes | ||
| bcc | No | ||
| uid | Yes | ||
| body | Yes | ||
| folder | Yes | ||
| subject | Yes | ||
| html_body | No | ||
| from_address | No | ||
| confirm_replace | No | ||
| attachment_paths | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a real behavioral trait: a confirmation flag is mandatory, hinting at a guarded destructive operation. However, it never states that the whole draft is overwritten (not a partial patch), what happens to omitted optional fields like attachments, or whether the replacement is reversible.
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, front-loaded with the operation and followed by the hard precondition. No filler and nothing wasted.
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 an 11-parameter, no-annotation, high-impact mutation tool, the description is far too thin. It omits replacement-vs-merge semantics, how the target draft is identified (uid + folder), and how optional fields behave, leaving an agent likely to misuse it.
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 11 parameters, so the description must compensate, but it only references one parameter (confirm_replace). The meanings of uid, folder, to, cc, bcc, body, html_body, from_address, and attachment_paths are left entirely to bare titles.
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 ('Replace an existing draft'), which clearly contrasts with the sibling save_draft by signaling mutation of an existing object rather than creation. It does not name the sibling explicitly, but the operation is 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?
It gives a precondition ('Requires confirm_replace=true') but no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing against alternatives like save_draft or send_message. Usage is only implied by the word 'existing'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.