Update an existing email draft by changing only the fields you specify, such as subject, body, recipients, or CC/BCC, while leaving all other content unchanged.
Revise an existing draft in place. Only the fields you pass are changed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cc | No | ||
| to | No | ||
| bcc | No | ||
| body | No | ||
| html | No | ||
| subject | No | ||
| draft_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states the partial-update behavior, which is a valuable disclosure beyond the schema. However, it omits error handling, idempotency, or what happens if the draft does not exist, leaving behavioral gaps.
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, focused sentences with no wasted words. The core action is front-loaded, and the second sentence clarifies the update semantics effectively.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity and presence of an output schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, missing context on error behavior or authentication (given no annotations) leaves room for improvement, making it minimally viable.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. The phrase 'Only the fields you pass are changed' adds key partial-update semantics beyond the raw schema. Yet no per-parameter details are given, though parameter names are self-explanatory.
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 uses the specific verb 'Revise' with 'existing draft' and 'in place,' clearly identifying the target resource and distinguishing it from creation or other operations. This directly differentiates the tool from siblings like iris_create_draft.
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 usage context (update an existing draft) is implied but no explicit when/when-not guidance or alternatives are given. It doesn't mention that creating a new draft should use the sibling tool, leaving usage to be inferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.