gmail_draft

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool creates a draft (a mutation) and that all fields are optional, which is a useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention side effects (e.g., the draft is saved but not sent) or describe the response structure, though an output schema exists.

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 highly concise with two short sentences that immediately convey the main purpose and an important operational nuance. There is no fluff or repetition.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description lacks essential context for a tool with 7 parameters and no annotations. It does not explain what happens when a draft is created, how it can be accessed later, or the relationship to gmail_send_draft. The sparse description is minimal but not fully complete for a robust tool.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it fails to explain individual parameters. The only parameter-related statement is 'All fields are optional,' which is already evident from the schema (required: 0). It does not describe fields like to, body, or thread_id, making the description inadequate for parameter 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 tool's purpose: 'Create a Gmail draft.' This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from siblings like gmail_send (which sends immediately) and gmail_send_draft (which sends an existing draft).

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 implies usage for creating drafts, especially work-in-progress drafts, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. It points out that 'All fields are optional for work-in-progress drafts,' which gives context, but no clear when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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