update_draft

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the important merge behavior ('only fields you pass are changed') and the autosave use case, but it does not mention return value, error behavior, or permission requirements for modifying a draft.

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 a single sentence with the core behavior front-loaded and the partial-update caveat in a parenthetical. Every word earns its place, with no repetition of schema details.

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 7-param mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally viable: it states the target resource, the update style, and the merge behavior. It lacks response/error details and any note on permissions or idempotency, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent.

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 only 43%, and the description does not clarify the format or meaning of the undocumented parameters (to, html, text, subject). It adds useful group-level semantics about unchanged fields being preserved, but that does not compensate for the low per-parameter coverage.

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 a concrete verb ('update') and a clear resource ('draft'), and immediately qualifies it as a partial, autosave-friendly update. This distinguishes it from create_draft, get_draft, list_drafts, and delete_draft without needing to inspect the schema.

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 partial-update and autosave-friendly framing gives a clear context for when to call it: modifying an existing draft while preserving unspecified fields. It does not explicitly name create_draft or get_draft as alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of full routing guidance.

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