create_draft

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does disclose the two most important behaviors: the draft is persisted to the one.com Drafts folder and the email is not actually sent, which rules out the primary risk of accidental delivery. However, it says nothing about return values, duplicate-draft behavior on repeated calls, or authentication requirements — gaps that matter for a create operation with no output schema.

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?

One 11-word sentence that front-loads the action, names the destination, and closes with the critical non-sending guarantee. There is no filler or redundancy — every element earns its place.

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 description fully covers the call itself, but with no output schema an agent cannot know whether a draft identifier is returned for later reference (for example, to retrieve or delete the draft via get_email_content or delete_emails). It is adequate for a straightforward create-without-send action, yet the absent return-value guidance and lack of explicit sibling routing leave the post-creation workflow unclear.

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 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies; all five parameters (to, cc, subject, bodyText, bodyHtml) already carry descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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?

States a specific verb ('Create'), resource ('an email draft'), and destination ('in the one.com Drafts folder'). The clause 'without sending' directly distinguishes it from the send_email, reply_email, and forward_email siblings, so an agent can identify the tool's purpose and scope without opening 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 'without sending' phrase implies the use case — composing an email to be stored rather than delivered — which implicitly contrasts with send_email. However, no alternative is named explicitly and no when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance is provided, so the routing is left to inference.

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