imap_preview_reply_to_email

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It explicitly discloses that the tool does not send and that a draftId is returned for a follow-up confirmation step. It does not fully define what 'freeze' entails, such as editability or draft persistence, which keeps it from a 5.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The core behavior is stated first, and the actionable follow-up step is included concisely.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential workflow: preview/freeze, no send, and confirmation via the returned draftId. It leaves some ambiguity around 'freeze' and the exact response shape, but an agent has enough context to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, and every parameter already has meaningful descriptions. The tool description itself adds no param-specific guidance, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 precise verb and resource: 'Preview and freeze a threaded reply without sending it.' It clearly differentiates the tool from send/forward preview siblings by emphasizing threading and the no-send behavior, and it names the companion tool imap_confirm_send.

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?

It gives clear context: use this for a threaded reply, do not send, then confirm with imap_confirm_send. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives like imap_preview_send_email or imap_preview_forward_email, but the 'threaded reply' and confirmation flow make the intended usage clear.

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