gmail_create_draft

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false and openWorld=true; the description's real contribution is the guarantee that no message is sent, which is meaningful safety context for a draft-creation tool. It says nothing about what is returned (draft ID?), duplicate-draft behavior on retry, or attachment/HTML constraints beyond what the schema states.

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 action and followed by the key constraint; nothing is wasted. The only markdown is that the brevity leaves obvious gaps rather than that any sentence is redundant.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and a third of schema coverage, the description is too thin: it omits return value, thread_id semantics, and any hint of the attachment/inline-image/HTML interplay that the more complex parameters require.

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 only 33% across 9 parameters, so the description is expected to compensate — yet it mentions no parameters at all. Required fields (to, subject, body) and the unexplained thread_id (apparently reply-threading) are left entirely to the schema, with thread_id carrying no description anywhere.

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 (creates a Gmail draft) and adds a scope qualifier ('for human review'). It implicitly separates itself from gmail_send_draft and gmail_send_message_strict, though it never names the close sibling gmail_create_draft_with_drive_files.

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?

'For human review' plus 'never sends the message' implies the when: use this when a human should approve before sending. But it names no alternative tool and gives no explicit exclusion ('use gmail_send_draft when…', 'use gmail_create_draft_with_drive_files if attachments live in Drive'), leaving the routing to inference.

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