Ai Draft Reply

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the draft is generated from the organization's configured prompts and knowledge base, and the result is returned rather than sent, which explains why the call is side-effect-free.

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 sentences with zero filler; the core purpose is front-loaded and the key differentiator (no send) closes it. Every clause earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter, no-nested, read-only tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description is nearly sufficient. It notes a draft is returned but does not describe draft characteristics (e.g. it is not persisted, single suggestion), a minor gap given there is no output schema.

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% and both parameters carry descriptions (including a pointer to organization_list for the org id), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 ('Generate an AI reply draft for a conversation') and immediately scopes it relative to the similar-looking conversation_reply sibling by specifying 'without sending it.' An agent can distinguish it from the send path without opening the schema.

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 'without sending it' clause implicitly signals the when-to-use case versus conversation_reply, but the description never explicitly names the alternative or states a positive selection condition (e.g. 'use before replying to preview'). Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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