gmail_createDraft

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It only states that the tool creates a draft, which implies it does not send, but it fails to disclose side effects, authentication requirements, return values, or behavior with invalid inputs like a bad threadId. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutation tool.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple action, though it could have incorporated a bit more detail without becoming verbose.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., a draft ID), that the draft is saved to the Gmail drafts folder, or that it requires authentication. Given the moderate parameter count, more context is needed for a complete picture.

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?

The schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all 7 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so it neither improves nor worsens understanding.

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 action: 'Create a draft email message.' The verb 'create' and the resource 'draft email message' are specific and distinguish it from sibling tools like gmail_sendDraft (which sends a draft) or gmail_send (which directly sends an email).

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. It does not mention that this tool only creates a draft and that gmail_sendDraft or gmail_send should be used to actually send, nor does it indicate any prerequisites or use cases.

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