create_draft_email

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates a draft that can be edited and sent later, which implies a write operation with persistence, but lacks details on permissions required, where the draft is stored, whether it's immediately visible, error conditions, or what happens on success/failure. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence that clearly states the tool's purpose without redundancy. It's front-loaded with the core action and includes a useful secondary detail about the draft's lifecycle.

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 mutation tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like error handling, authentication needs, or what the tool returns, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to use it effectively.

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 71%, providing good documentation for most parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the tool's overall purpose, so it doesn't compensate for the 29% gap (e.g., parameters like importance or content_type lack contextual explanation in the description). Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema does most of the work.

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 action ('Create a draft email') and purpose ('that can be edited and sent later'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like send_email or send_draft_email. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from update_draft_email or other create_* tools beyond the email context.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like send_email directly or update_draft_email. It mentions the draft can be 'edited and sent later' but doesn't specify scenarios where creating a draft is preferable over immediate sending or when to choose this over other email-related tools.

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