gmail_create_draft

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the critical behavioral trait: the draft is only saved to Gmail Drafts and is not sent. It also scopes the operation to the authenticated user's Gmail account. It doesn't discuss return values or failure modes, but for a simple draft-creation tool this is a minor gap.

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?

Four short sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core action, the second gives usage context, the third clarifies what it does not do, and the fourth routes to the correct sibling tool.

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 6-parameter tool with a fully described schema and no output schema, the description covers everything needed for correct invocation: what it does, when to use it, that it does not send, and which sibling to use instead. No essential context is missing.

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%, with every parameter documented, including the html_body override behavior. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter-level meaning, but the schema already handles this fully, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Creates an email draft in the authenticated user's Gmail account.' It further distinguishes itself from gmail_send_email by explicitly stating that it does NOT send the email and only saves the draft to Gmail Drafts.

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 gives explicit usage context: 'Use this tool when you want to prepare an email for review before sending.' It also states a clear exclusion ('This tool does NOT send the email') and names the correct alternative: 'To send an email, use the gmail_send_email tool instead.'

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