create_draft

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context by noting the draft is saved to the Drafts folder, and the workflow implies it does not send immediately. However, it omits details like whether the tool returns a draft ID or the exact side effects beyond saving, which leaves some ambiguity for a create operation.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word contributes: it states the action, the folder destination, and the follow-up workflow. No filler or repetition exists, making it exceptionally concise.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (7 parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate. It explains the core behavior and the follow-up workflow, which helps the agent understand the tool's role in the larger email process. It does not detail return values, but without an output schema that gap is less critical. Some edge cases (e.g., validation rules, recipient requirements) are not covered, but the description is sufficient for basic selection and invocation.

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 schema has 86% description coverage, which is high, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, such as the required 'to', 'subject', and 'body' fields, leaving the schema to carry the parameter semantics.

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 function: 'Create a new email draft (saved to Drafts folder).' This specifies the verb (create), resource (email draft), and result (saved to Drafts folder), making it distinct from sibling tools like create_reply_draft or create_forward_draft.

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 a clear workflow by stating 'Use update_draft to modify, then send_draft to send.' This indicates when to use the tool relative to its siblings, though it does not explicitly exclude alternatives like create_reply_draft or create_forward_draft, which are implied to be for different draft types.

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