create_draft

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds context by emphasizing 'minimal draft' and not sending, which aligns with annotations. No contradictions.

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. The first states the purpose, the second provides usage guidelines and exclusions. 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?

Given 8 optional parameters, no output schema, and complex sibling tools, the description provides sufficient context: it creates a draft, does not send, and is not for replies. It could mention the return value (e.g., draft ID) but is otherwise complete for a minimal tool.

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 100%, so the description does not need to add parameter-level detail. It does not provide any additional meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 'create', the resource 'draft email record', and the qualifier 'minimal ... without sending it'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like save_draft and reply_email by explicitly naming them.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('when the user wants a placeholder draft or partial draft state') and when not to use ('Do not use for threaded replies or a send-ready draft reply'), with specific alternative tools named (save_draft, reply_email).

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