hey_edit_draft

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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: outright (non-merging) replacement semantics, the omit-to-leave-unchanged rule, irreversibility of overwritten values, and the return shape {success, draftId, error?}. There is mild tension with destructiveHint=false given the explicit warning that previous values are not recoverable, but the target draft itself is not destroyed, so this reads as nuance rather than a hard contradiction.

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 core purpose and the crucial no-merge/omit rule are front-loaded, followed by return shape, irreversibility, and routing. Every sentence carries information, though the description is dense and runs slightly long for a five-parameter update tool.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description supplies the return shape and the key behavioral rules (replacement, omission, irreversibility) an agent needs to invoke it safely. Nothing essential is missing for correct 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by clarifying that omitted fields retain their last-saved value and that passing a field replaces rather than merges — a semantic the schema does not state and that materially affects how the agent should call it.

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 (update), resource (an existing draft), and the exact mutable fields (recipients, subject, body). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling create tool hey_save_draft and the removal tool hey_delete_draft, so an agent can route correctly without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly states prerequisites ('Use hey_save_draft to create a draft before calling this') and a when-not condition ('use hey_delete_draft to remove one instead of blanking it out'). It also gives a concrete guidance action — re-fetch via hey_list_emails(folder='drafts') first if preservation matters.

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