Save a message draft

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

Annotations include openWorldHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds the critical non-obvious behavior that an empty text clears the draft. It also scopes the operation to a dialog. This goes beyond what annotations already provide, though it does not detail overwrite behavior or return values.

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 two sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and includes a helpful usage note. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 relatively simple draft-saving tool, the description covers the essential action and a key variant (clearing). However, it omits any mention of return behavior, optional parameters (replyTo, noWebpage), and does not differentiate from the sibling clear_draft tool, leaving room for ambiguity in a broader workflow.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden for parameter meaning. It only clarifies the `text` parameter (empty clears), while `peer`, `replyTo`, `topMsgId`, `accountId`, and `noWebpage` remain unexplained. The compensation is incomplete for six parameters.

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 tool's purpose: saving a draft for a dialog. It also adds key behavior (passing empty text clears) which distinguishes it from list_drafts and hints at an alternative to clear_draft, though not explicitly differentiating by name.

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 implies when to use it (to save a draft) and gives a usage nuance for clearing via empty text, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives like clear_draft or list_drafts, nor when to prefer them. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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