save_draft

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to cover safety. It adds that drafts are saved to the 'Drafts' folder, but omits other behavioral traits like whether it overwrites existing drafts or returns an identifier. This is acceptable given 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 three sentences long with no wasted words. Each sentence serves a clear purpose: stating the action, describing the workflow, and referencing related tools.

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?

The description explains the tool's role in the email composition workflow, which adds context beyond the schema. However, it does not mention whether the draft is automatically saved or if there are any limits. Given the moderate complexity and rich schema, it is mostly complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so all 8 parameters have descriptions in the input schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, warranting a baseline score of 3.

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 an email draft to the Drafts folder, with a specific verb ('save') and resource ('email draft'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'send_draft' and 'list_emails' by mentioning the workflow.

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: 'Compose over time, then use send_draft to send it. Use list_emails with the Drafts mailbox to see saved drafts.' This outlines when to use the tool and suggests alternatives, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it.

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