create_draft

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the most important trait, that this never sends and the user sends manually, but omits authentication needs, rate limits, return values, and other side-effect details.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the key safety constraint. Every sentence adds useful information with no waste.

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 simple three-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and non-sending behavior. However, it leaves parameter semantics and post-creation return behavior unaddressed, which is a meaningful gap for a mutation tool without annotations.

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?

All three parameters have zero schema description coverage, so the description should compensate but says nothing about them. The names to, subject, and body are largely self-explanatory, which prevents a score of 1, but no formats, constraints, or multi-recipient semantics are provided.

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: create a Gmail DRAFT. It clearly distinguishes the action from sending, but does not differentiate from sibling tools because none of the listed siblings create drafts.

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 clearly establishes the use case: compose a draft for manual sending by the user, never automatic sending. It does not name explicit alternatives or when-not conditions, but the context is sufficiently clear.

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