update_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 does not reveal that recipient fields 'Replace all' recipients (as indicated in the schema), nor does it mention what happens to the draft after modification (e.g., whether it auto-saves, returns an updated draft, or requires the draft to be in a certain state). This lack of behavioral detail is a significant gap for a mutation tool with no annotations.

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, with the primary action front-loaded. The first sentence states the tool's core purpose, and the second provides usage context. Every word contributes meaning; no filler or 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 tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description gives a clear purpose and usage context but lacks critical behavioral details such as replacement semantics and post-modification behavior. It is not completely inadequate, but it leaves the agent to infer important execution implications from the schema.

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 high (88%), so the schema already documents most parameters. The description groups them into categories (subject, body, recipients, importance) but does not add deeper semantics beyond that, such as the replace-all behavior for recipients. It adds marginal value, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 opens with 'Modify a draft message before sending,' which clearly states a specific verb ('modify') and resource ('draft message'). It further lists what can be changed (subject, body, recipients, importance), effectively distinguishing it from siblings like update_email or send_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 explicit context by stating 'Use with create_draft, create_reply_draft, create_reply_all_draft, or create_forward_draft.' This tells the agent when this tool is appropriate (after creating a draft). It doesn't explicitly mention exclusions, but the draft-specific context and sibling names imply the boundary clearly.

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