Save Draft

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

Annotations indicate a non-idempotent write that is not destructive. The description confirms it saves to Drafts and does not send. No additional side effects (e.g., overwriting) are disclosed, but no contradictions exist.

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 cover purpose, field optionality, and return value without extraneous information. Every sentence adds value.

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 10 optional parameters and an output schema (not shown here but referenced), the description highlights key aspects: save to Drafts, all fields optional, returns UID. This is sufficient for a draft-saving tool.

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 90%, so the schema already documents parameters well. The description adds 'All fields are optional' but little else beyond what is in the schema.

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 'Save an email as a draft in the Drafts folder without sending it,' specifying the action (save) and resource (email draft). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like send_email or reply_to_email.

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 usage for composing drafts without sending, but does not explicitly compare to alternatives like send_email. However, the tool name and context make the use case clear.

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