ofw_save_draft

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

The description discloses important behavioral traits beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: creating a new draft and deleting the old one, response.id being new, and cache rewriting for replyToId. No contradiction with 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 slightly lengthy but well-structured with front-loaded key information. Each sentence adds value, though it could be trimmed slightly without losing meaning.

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 (side effects, cache behavior, file attachment) and the absence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary behavioral nuances, including re-fetching from server to populate cache.

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 input schema covers all 6 parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by explaining the practical implications of 'messageId', 'myFileIDs', and 'replyToId', which go beyond 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 the tool saves a message as a draft, specifies optional recipients, and explains the process of replacing an existing draft. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'ofw_send_message' and 'ofw_list_drafts' by focusing on draft saving.

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 guidance on when to use the tool and key caveats (e.g., new ID creation, cache rewriting for replyToId). It does not explicitly mention when not to use it (e.g., if you want to send immediately), but the context is clear enough.

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