dm_prepare_draft

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

The description calls the draft 'idempotent', but the annotations declare idempotentHint=false. This directly contradicts structured behavioral metadata. Beyond the contradiction, it does not explain permissions, side effects, or what the returned draft looks like.

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 short sentences and front-loads the core action. It is efficient, though the phrase 'this thread domain' is vague and the idempotency claim is misleading.

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 four required parameters, zero schema descriptions, no output schema, and annotations that contradict the description, the definition is not complete enough for an agent to invoke it confidently. It needs parameter semantics and accurate behavioral details.

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% for all four required parameters. The description hints at thread scope and idempotency, but does not explain what threadId, body, revision, or actionId mean or how they should be supplied.

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 states a specific verb and resource: preparing a draft, and clarifies it must never be sent. This distinguishes it from dm_send, though it does not explicitly name or compare against that sibling.

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 gives a usage constraint ('Use only context from this thread domain') and implies when to use it by saying 'never send it'. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this over dm_send or other drafting/sending alternatives.

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