create_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 the key behavior (does not send) and the workflow with send_draft. However, it lacks details about what happens after saving (e.g., return value, draft identifier) or side effects like overwriting behavior. This is adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences long, with the main point front-loaded. Every word earns its place, and there is no repetition of schema content. It is appropriately concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (6 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the core purpose and relationship to send_draft but leaves gaps: it does not explain what the response contains, how to reference the draft later, or any constraints beyond the schema. This is adequate for a simple tool but not fully complete.

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%, so the schema fully documents all six parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema, which gives the baseline score of 3. No additional semantics are provided.

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 function: 'Save an email as a draft without sending.' This is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from send_email and send_draft. The mention of editing or sending later via send_draft further clarifies its role in the workflow.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you want to save a draft rather than send immediately. It also points to send_draft as the alternative for sending later. However, it does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or mention any prerequisites, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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