create_draft

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the message is stored rather than sent and that attachments of 3 MB or more use chunked upload up to 150 MB, but it says nothing about auth requirements, what the call returns (draft ID?), or how failures on large uploads surface.

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 zero waste: the not-sent constraint is front-loaded and the attachment edge case follows. Nothing redundant with the schema.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, incomplete schema descriptions and no output schema, the definition covers the core intent and the attachment size caveat but omits return value, auth prerequisites, and bodyType handling, leaving meaningful 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 43% (low), with cc, bcc, body, subject and the attachment path undocumented by the schema. The description compensates only for attachments (size thresholds); the required to/subject/body and cc/bcc semantics are left to field names and validation patterns.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Create a draft message') with an explicit scope clarification ('in the Drafts folder (not sent)') that implicitly separates it from send_mail and reply_message. It does not name the sibling tools directly, so it falls just short of 5.

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 parenthetical '(not sent)' hints at when to use this instead of send_mail, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance, no mention of reply_message or forward_message as alternatives, and no stated prerequisites (e.g., login).

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