update_draft

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one genuinely useful behavior — omitted fields are left untouched — but says nothing about permissions, failure modes, or how an explicitly passed null differs from an omitted field, which matters because every field is nullable with a null default.

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, front-loaded with the operation and followed by the key semantic rule; nothing is redundant. Given the documentation vacuum elsewhere, the terseness is economical rather than padded, though a sentence could be repurposed to real effect.

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?

For a five-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the definition is too thin: parameter meanings, null-vs-omitted semantics, and error conditions are all missing. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but that does not offset the input-side gaps.

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% across five parameters, so the description must compensate and it does not: it names none of draft_id, to, cc, subject, body, nor explains expected formats (arrays of addresses). The generic 'omitted fields' sentence adds a little meaning but leaves every parameter undocumented.

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 ('Uppdatera ett befintligt utkast') and adds the partial-update rule. It is clearly distinguishable from create_draft/delete_draft by name, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.

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?

Usage is only implied: you update a draft that already exists, so create_draft/create_reply_draft are the alternatives for new content. There is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites (does the draft_id have to exist / be owned by the caller?), and no exclusions.

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