create_reply_all_draft

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool creates a draft (a mutation) and describes the return value in detail (recipients, quoted body, RE: subject). It does not mention permissions or failure modes, but for a draft-creation tool this is reasonably transparent and provides useful 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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every piece of information earns its place. It avoids repetition and is efficient without sacrificing clarity.

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?

This is a low-complexity tool with a single parameter and no output schema. The description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns, and how to proceed (update_draft, send_draft), making it complete for its scope.

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 already provides a complete description for messageId ('Message ID from get_emails or search_emails'), covering 100% of parameters. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific guidance, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create a draft reply-all') and names the exact resource scope ('all recipients of a message'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_reply_draft. It also states what the returned draft contains (pre-filled recipients, quoted body, RE: subject), leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 the usage context (reply-all to a message) and provides explicit next-step guidance ('Use update_draft to modify, then send_draft to send'). It does not explicitly compare with create_reply_draft or create_forward_draft, but the context is clear enough for an AI to select this tool when a reply-all draft is needed.

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