update_draft_email

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'update' implies a mutation operation, the description doesn't disclose whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, what happens to fields not mentioned in the update, or any rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable without unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place in conveying the basic 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 mutation tool with 8 parameters, low schema coverage (38%), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permissions or side effects, parameter details beyond the schema, or usage context. The description should do more to compensate for the lack of structured data.

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 low at 38%, with only 'draft_id' having a clear description. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's implied by the tool name—it doesn't explain what fields can be updated, their formats, or constraints. With 8 parameters and poor schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving most parameters undocumented.

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 ('update') and resource ('existing draft email'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_draft_email' and 'send_draft_email' by specifying it's for updates rather than creation or sending. However, it doesn't specify what aspects can be updated beyond the generic term.

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 'create_draft_email' or 'send_draft_email'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing draft), exclusions, or specific contexts where this tool is appropriate versus other update tools like 'update_calendar' or 'update_contact'.

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