Preview email draft

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

With all annotations false, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the returned token is short-lived and bound to a specific revision, which is critical for an agent to know. It does not explain side effects or token consumption details, but the core behavior is transparent.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the trigger condition, then a precise list of displayed fields, then a vital token-lifetime warning. No filler or redundancy.

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?

The description covers the trigger, output fields, and token-lifetime property, which is a workable basis for invocation. However, with no output schema and no annotation support, it leaves gaps such as how the returned token should be consumed, what happens if the revision is stale, and whether the preview invalidates prior previews.

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. It gives some meaning to 'revision' by saying the token is bound to it, but it never defines draftId or explains how to obtain the correct revision value. For two required parameters, this is only minimal compensation.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('preview email draft'), lists the exact fields the preview shows, and positions it as the step immediately before send approval. This clearly distinguishes it from mail_draft_send, mail_get, and mail_draft_update.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: immediately before asking the user to approve sending. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the workflow context is clear enough among the sibling draft tools.

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