Create a Gmail draft attaching up to five Google Drive files by ID, downloaded server-side and never written to disk; the draft is audited and never sent.
Creates a Gmail draft attaching Google Drive files by ID (downloaded server-side, never written to disk). Max 5 files. Audited; never sends.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cc | No | ||
| to | Yes | ||
| bcc | No | ||
| body | Yes | ||
| is_html | No | ||
| subject | Yes | ||
| drive_file_ids | Yes | Drive file IDs to attach |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: Drive files are downloaded server-side and never written to disk, at most 5 files are allowed, the operation is audited, and the draft is never sent. It does not mention auth requirements or rate limits, but the safety-relevant traits are well covered.
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 three short clauses, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the most important constraints. Every sentence carries useful information with no filler.
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?
The description captures the critical limits and safety behavior, which is valuable for a tool with 7 parameters and no output schema. However, with very low schema description coverage, it remains incomplete about several parameters and does not describe the result of draft creation.
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 14%, and the description only adds meaning for drive_file_ids, noting IDs and the max of 5. It does not clarify the roles of to, cc, bcc, subject, body, or is_html, leaving most parameters without meaningful semantic guidance.
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 states a specific verb and resource: creating a Gmail draft with attached Google Drive files by ID. It also distinguishes this tool from plain draft creation by emphasizing the Drive attachment capability and from sending by stating it never sends.
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 intended use case is implied by 'Creates a Gmail draft attaching Google Drive files by ID', but the description does not explicitly say when to choose this over gmail_create_draft or gmail_send_message_strict. It also provides no exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.