create_reply_draft

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates a draft, implying a write operation, but doesn't disclose key traits like required permissions, whether the draft is saved automatically, rate limits, or error handling. It mentions a return status but lacks details on success/failure conditions. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first. The 'Args' and 'Returns' sections add structure, though they could be integrated more seamlessly. There's no wasted text, but minor improvements in flow could enhance readability, keeping it efficient but not perfect.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, mutation operation), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is partially complete. It covers the basic action and parameters but lacks behavioral context and detailed usage guidelines. The output schema likely handles return values, so the description's mention of 'A status message' is sufficient, but overall gaps remain in transparency and guidelines.

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 description adds minimal semantics beyond the input schema. It explains that 'email_id' is 'The ID of the email to reply to' and 'reply_text' is 'The text content of the reply,' which clarifies purpose but doesn't provide format details, constraints, or examples. With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates but not fully, aligning with the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is low but some param info is given.

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's purpose: 'Create a reply draft for an email with the given reply text.' This specifies the verb ('create'), resource ('reply draft'), and target ('email'). It distinguishes from sibling 'create_new_email_draft' (new email vs reply) and 'read_emails' (read vs create), though not explicitly. It's not a tautology but lacks explicit sibling differentiation, so it's a 4.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to use 'create_reply_draft' instead of 'create_new_email_draft' or other potential tools, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The context is implied (replying to an email), but no explicit usage rules are given, resulting in a score of 2.

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