reply_all

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

The description does not contradict the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). It adds a note about being a convenience wrapper, which implies the same behavior as create_draft but with predefined seed and reply_all flags. However, it does not detail side effects (e.g., sending an email is irreversible) or any requirements beyond what the schema covers. With minimal annotation support, the description provides only modest behavioral transparency.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and the implementation note. No filler or repetition; highly scannable for an agent.

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 tool is a simple wrapper with fully documented parameters in the schema. The description gives the essential intent and relationship to create_draft gradients, which is sufficient for safe use, though it does not mention potential side effects like sending delays or permission requirements, but those are not necessary for a simple send operation.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions (e.g., 'Reply body. Auto-quotes original if empty', 'send immediately vs. save as draft'). The description itself does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so it sits at the baseline of 3.

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: 'Reply to all recipients of an existing message.' This is a specific verb+resource pairing. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming it a wrapper over create_draft with reply_all=True, indicating a specialized reply-all behavior.

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 frames the tool as a 'Convenience wrapper over create_draft', implying that for more control one should use create_draft directly. This gives clear context on when to use this tool versus the more generic alternative, though it does not explicitly state exclusions or when NOT to use it.

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