create_draft

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

With no annotations provided, the description correctly takes on the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that nothing is sent and that no confirmation is needed, which are the key safety-relevant behaviors. It does not describe all side effects (e.g., overwriting an existing draft or return value), but it covers the most important non-sending behavior.

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 description is two sentences with no wasted words. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the critical non-sending caveat 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?

The tool has 8 optional parameters, no parameter descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema. The description provides only the core purpose and safety caveat, leaving substantial gaps around parameter usage, expected return, and account requirements. This is insufficient for a tool with this complexity.

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 for the 8 undocumented parameters. It does not mention to, cc, bcc, subject, body, html_body, attachments, or account, nor does it clarify that all fields are optional. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no semantic value beyond the schema.

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 ('Save a draft in the Drafts folder') and explicitly differentiates this tool from sending by saying 'Nothing is sent'. This clearly distinguishes create_draft from siblings like send_message and reply_to_message.

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 description establishes clear usage context: use this tool when the user needs to review and send later from their own mail client, not when an immediate send is intended. It lacks explicit naming of alternatives or a direct 'when not to use', but the implied routing is strong.

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