create_draftSave a draft to the Drafts folder without sending it, letting you compose or edit email later. Use it to stage messages before final delivery.
Guarda un borrador en la carpeta Drafts. No envía el correo.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cc | No | ||
| to | No | ||
| bcc | No | ||
| html | No | ||
| text | No | ||
| subject | No | ||
| attachment_paths | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, already indicating a write operation. The description adds the critical behavioral detail that it saves to the Drafts folder and does not send the email, which is not captured by the annotations and helps the agent avoid confusing this with a send action. However, it does not describe permissions, return values, or side effects on existing drafts.
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?
Two short, front-loaded sentences communicate the core action and the key non-send distinction without any filler. The description is appropriately sized for a minimal tool summary.
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 7 parameters, no parameter descriptions, and no output schema, the description is far too sparse. It gives no help on how to supply recipients, content, or attachments, making it inadequate for correct invocation beyond the basic purpose.
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?
There are 7 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, yet the description provides no information about any of them. It does not explain the expected formats for to, cc, bcc, subject, text, html, or attachment_paths, leaving the agent without guidance on how to construct the draft.
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 ('Guarda') and resource ('un borrador') with its destination ('carpeta Drafts'), and explicitly distinguishes it from sending ('No envía el correo'), which separates it from sibling tools like send_message. An agent can identify the core action 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 phrase 'No envía el correo' implies that this tool should be used when the user does not want to send the message, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as send_message or reply_message. Usage is implied rather than directly instructed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.