gmail_update_draft

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully warns that the operation 'Replaces the entire draft content' (a destructive overwrite) and states the required auth scope ('compose or full scope'). However, it omits details such as whether attachments are preserved or what the return value is, leaving some gaps.

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?

Three short sentences, no filler, and the most important behavioral fact ('Replaces the entire draft content') appears early. Every sentence earns its place.

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 11 parameters, a fully covered schema, and no output schema, the description is lean but sufficient for basic invocation. It lacks mention of return value or attachment handling, but the key warning about full replacement mitigates the risk of misuse.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds crucial meaning by stating that the entire draft content is replaced, implying omitted parameters will be cleared—valuable context beyond the per-field schema descriptions.

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 action ('Update') and the resource ('existing draft email'). The phrase 'Replaces the entire draft content' further specifies the scope, distinguishing it from partial edits or create/send operations among sibling tools.

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 use when a draft already exists and needs modification, but it does not explicitly contrast with gmail_create_draft or explain when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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