waiting_on_draft_reply

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It explicitly states 'Never sends,' implying safety, but fails to disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether authentication is required, or what side effects (if any) occur on 'create.' The agent lacks critical behavioral context.

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 very concise at two sentences, which is appropriate for a simple tool. It front-loads the core action and critical note. No wasted words.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description covers basic purpose and a key constraint. However, it lacks explanation of the 'preview' action's return value, the effect of 'create,' and error conditions. It is adequate but not complete.

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?

The sole parameter 'thread_key' has no description in the schema (0% coverage). The description does not explain what a thread key is, how to obtain it, or its purpose. No added semantic value beyond the parameter name.

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 function: preview or create a Gmail draft, with a key disclaimer that it never sends. The verb 'preview or create' and resource 'Gmail draft' are specific. However, it does not differentiate between the two actions (preview vs create), leaving potential ambiguity. It distinguishes from sibling tools by being draft-specific.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or when to preview versus create. The sibling tools list includes various 'waiting_on_*' tools, but no comparison is made. There is no mention of prerequisites or context for invocation.

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