update_email_draft

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that the operation mutates a draft via 'Update/edit' and PATCH, but it does not state whether unspecified fields are preserved, whether the draft must remain unsent, what permissions are required, or what the response contains. This is a notable gap for a mutation tool.

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 that front-loads the verb and resource, then adds the endpoint for technical precision. Every word is informative and there is no filler or repetition of the tool name.

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 input schema fully documents all 7 parameters, so invocation details are well covered. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description does not address what the tool returns, error conditions, or side effects on unspecified fields. For a straightforward draft update, this is partially complete but missing behavioral context.

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 is 3 even without parameter details in the description. The description adds little beyond naming 'subject, body, or recipient', which overlaps with existing schema descriptions. It does not clarify formats or relationships beyond what the schema already 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Update/edit'), a specific resource ('an existing email draft'), and the affected fields ('subject, body, or recipient'). The PATCH endpoint further reinforces that this is a modification operation, clearly distinguishing it from siblings like create_email_draft and create_reply_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 phrase 'existing email draft before sending' provides clear context that this tool is for modifying drafts already created, not for creating new ones or sending messages. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for an agent to select it correctly over create_email_draft or send_email.

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