Entwurf anlegen

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

The description discloses the critical behavior of not sending the email, which is not obvious from the name alone. It also labels it as 'safe', implying non-destructive behavior. Annotations only provide openWorldHint, which is vague and not contradicted; the description adds value by clarifying the draft creation and non-sending nature.

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 core action and the key distinction (not sending) are front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand the tool's purpose.

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 tool with 11 parameters but a schema covering most of them, the description provides sufficient context: what it does, when to use it, and the critical 'not sending' aspect. It lacks explicit mention of return values, but no output schema exists, and the description is otherwise complete for selection and invocation.

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 73%, so most parameters are already documented. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides; it only explains the overall purpose. Since coverage is moderate and the description does not compensate for undocumented parameters, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the verb 'erstellt' (creates) and the resource 'E-Mail als Entwurf' (email as draft), and explicitly distinguishes it from sending by adding 'ohne sie zu versenden' (without sending). This differentiates it from mail_send among siblings.

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 provides a usage condition: 'Der sichere Weg, wenn der Nutzer die Mail vorher im eigenen Mailprogramm prüfen will' (the safe way when the user wants to check the mail in their own mail program). This implies when to use it versus alternatives like mail_send, though it does not explicitly name the alternative or exclude other conditions.

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