Create DM 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 discloses the draft lifecycle (not sent until approved), the required addressing modes, and the one-attachment limit, which are meaningful behaviors beyond what the input schema specifies.

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 three concise sentences, each covering a distinct aspect: purpose, requirements, and workflow. No redundant information; it is well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool has 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, how to address a recipient, the draft approval flow, and media limits. It doesn't detail group conversation setup, but the schema provides that information, making the description adequate for an agent to decide when to use it.

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 descriptions cover all parameters (100%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds cross-parameter semantics by explaining the alternatives (recipientId or recipientUsername or conversationId) and the media attachment constraint, which is not immediately obvious from individual property descriptions.

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 'Create a draft direct message' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_draft and create_retweet_draft by explicitly scoping to direct messages.

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 usage prerequisites: requires recipientId, recipientUsername, or conversationId for existing threads. It also clarifies the workflow by noting the draft is NOT sent until approved and send_dm_draft is called, which helps an agent understand when to use this tool versus other DM draft operations.

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