create_new_email_draft

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the tool creates a draft (implying a write operation), it doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the draft already exists. The description is minimal beyond stating the basic function.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, Args, Returns), uses minimal sentences that each serve a purpose, and is front-loaded with the main functionality. There's no wasted verbiage or redundancy.

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 that there's an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and the description covers all parameters, it's moderately complete. However, for a write operation tool with no annotations, it lacks important behavioral context like permissions needed, side effects, or error handling, which reduces completeness.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by clearly explaining all three parameters (recipient, subject, body_text) in the Args section, adding meaningful context like 'can be empty to leave blank' for recipient and default values implied by 'No Subject' and empty body. This provides good semantic understanding beyond the bare 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 specific action ('Create a new draft email') and distinguishes it from sibling tools by explicitly noting '(not a reply)', differentiating it from 'create_reply_draft'. The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.

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 clear context by stating 'not a reply', which helps differentiate when to use this tool versus 'create_reply_draft'. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when to use this versus 'read_emails' or provide any exclusions or prerequisites for usage.

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