create-draft-email

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

Description claims creation of a draft (non-destructive), but annotations declare destructiveHint=true, creating a direct contradiction. Per guidelines, a contradictory description scores 1.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and location, followed by a clarifying remark about saving vs sending. No superfluous text.

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?

Provides a decent overview but lacks information about the return value (no output schema) and does not mention all possible input fields like attachments or BCC. Adequate for a straightforward tool but could be more complete.

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?

With 75% schema description coverage, the description adds value by summarizing the key settable fields (subject, body, toRecipients, ccRecipients, importance), helping the agent focus on important parameters, though it omits others like attachments and flags.

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?

Clearly states the action (create), resource (draft Outlook email message), and location (Drafts folder). Lists key fields that can be set and distinguishes from send-mail by clarifying that the draft is saved, not sent.

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?

Provides explicit context: use to create a draft for later sending. Names an alternative tool (send-mail) for direct sending. Does not mention other draft creation tools like create-reply-draft or create-forward-draft, which are siblings.

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