create_reply_draft

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add the crucial behavioral fact that nothing is sent ('Skickas INTE'). However it omits whether the draft appears in a Drafts folder, whether it requires auth, and how reply_all affects the output.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the non-sending nature of the operation is front-loaded for emphasis. Efficient, though the Swedish text is terse enough to border on underspecified.

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?

A mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage needs substantially more from its description. As written, an agent knows it creates an unsent reply but not how reply_all behaves or what the draft result looks like.

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 coverage is 0% and the description explains none of the three parameters. 'Befintligt meddelande' vaguely implies message_id, but body and especially reply_all are left completely unexplained, so the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Skapa ett svarsutkast') scoped to 'ett befintligt meddelande', which distinguishes it from the sibling create_draft. It stops short of describing what the resulting draft contains or where it lives.

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 phrase 'på ett befintligt meddelande' implies this is for replying to an existing message rather than composing new mail, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with create_draft or update_draft. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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