Create a reply draft for a specific email, placing your response above the quoted original while maintaining the thread. Save to drafts without sending.
针对某封邮件生成回复草稿，保存到草稿箱。不会发送。回复内容会置于引用原文之上，并正确保持会话线程。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | 要回复的邮件 ID | |
| body | Yes | 回复正文（纯文本），会放在引用原文上方 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false) and provide no safety details. The description adds key behaviors: it won't send, it saves to drafts, and it positions reply content above the quoted original while maintaining the thread. This goes beyond annotations and helps the agent understand side effects.
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?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action, then adds the no-send guarantee and formatting behavior. No wasted words.
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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behaviors: generation, saving, no-send, and thread maintenance. It's complete enough for an agent to call it correctly, though it doesn't mention error handling or return values, which are not required given the simplicity.
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 100%, with both 'id' and 'body' described. The tool description repeats the placement detail for 'body' but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema fully documents parameters.
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 it generates a reply draft for a specific email and saves it to drafts, with the explicit behavior of not sending. It distinguishes from generic create_draft by being specifically for replies, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling as an alternative.
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?
It implies usage for replying to an email and creating a draft, but doesn't explicitly provide when-to-use vs alternatives like create_draft, nor any exclusions. The context is clear but lacks explicit routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.