create_draft

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait—each call creates a new draft—and warns against duplicate calls. However, it does not mention side effects like saving to the Drafts folder, authentication requirements, or return value behavior. The warning adds value but the description is still thin on behavioral details.

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 purpose, and the IMPORTANT warning is clearly highlighted. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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?

Despite having 12 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is very brief. It fails to explain what happens after creating a draft (e.g., how to reference it for send_draft/edit_draft), what the return value is, or how the tool interacts with sibling tools. The schema is detailed, but the description does not provide sufficient contextual glue for effective invocation.

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 descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minor semantic context by mentioning threading headers for replies, which maps to inReplyTo/references, but does not elaborate on other parameters. It does not significantly exceed the schema's information.

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 'Create an email draft without sending it', using a specific verb and resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like send_email, reply_email, and edit_draft. The additional context about threading headers further clarifies its scope.

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 provides explicit context for when to use this tool ('without sending it') and includes a strong warning about not calling twice for the same message. However, it does not name alternative tools or explicitly contrast with send_draft/edit_draft, so it lacks explicit alternatives.

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