gmail_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. It discloses that the tool does not send the email immediately and requires specific permissions, making its non-destructive nature clear. It could add more detail on error handling or return value, but the key behavioral facts are present.

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 three short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. Each sentence adds distinct value: purpose, lifecycle context, and permission requirement. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 complexity (10 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential context: what it does, the draft lifecycle, and required scopes. The schema covers parameter specifics. It doesn't explicitly state what the tool returns (e.g., draft ID), but this is inferable from sibling tools and the draft lifecycle mention. Reasonably complete for a create operation.

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 description coverage is 100%, with all parameters already explained in the JSON schema. The description itself adds no additional parameter-level meaning; it only mentions authorization scope, not parameter semantics. Since the schema handles parameter details, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

States 'Create a draft email' – a specific verb and resource. The second sentence clarifies the draft lifecycle (reviewed/updated/sent later), distinguishing it from immediately sending or from attachment-specific draft creation. This differentiates it well from siblings like gmail_send_draft and gmail_create_draft_with_attachment.

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?

Implies use when a draft is needed for later review or sending, and explicitly mentions the required OAuth scope ('compose or full scope') as a prerequisite. It gives clear context for when to use it, though it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion criteria.

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