update_draft

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

With no annotations, the description must cover behavioral traits. It does state 'full replacement, not a patch', which is key, but it omits details like whether omitted fields are cleared, what happens to attachments, required permissions, or the return value. This is adequate but not thorough.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the core behavior and key constraint (full replacement). No filler 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 11 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It doesn't explain return values, error handling, or how replacement interacts with complex fields like attachments. However, the high schema coverage partially compensates, making it minimally viable.

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 high (82%), so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds no parameter-level details beyond 'full replacement' which implies that all fields should be provided if needed. This meets the baseline for high coverage.

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 action ('Replace the content') and the resource ('existing draft'), with the crucial distinction of 'full replacement, not a patch'. This differentiates it from partial updates and from sibling tools like create_draft or delete_draft.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_draft for new drafts, modify_emails for sent emails). There are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, leaving the agent to infer context from the description alone.

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