gmail_drafts_create

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

Annotations already indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructiveness, but the description adds important behavioral detail: the draft is NOT sent and must be reviewed/sent in Gmail. It also explains that passing threadId makes the draft appear as a reply, exceeding what annotations provide.

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?

Two sentences carry all essential information—purpose, thread attachment behavior, and the non-sending caveat—with no fluff. The main action is front-loaded, and every clause earns its place.

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?

With 9 parameters, the schema fully documents each one, so the description need not restate them. It covers the key behavioral caveat (not sent) and the threading nuance. It does not mention the return value of the created draft, but since no output schema exists, this is a minor gap rather than a blocker.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by explaining the consequence of passing threadId (the draft appears as a reply in the thread), which goes beyond the schema's terse description of 'attach this draft to.' This incremental meaning justifies a 4.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource, 'Create a Gmail draft,' and immediately distinguishes this tool from sending by stating the draft is NOT sent. It also clarifies the threadId behavior, which differentiates it from any sibling creation tools like drive_files_create or calendar_events_insert.

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 gives clear guidance on when to supply threadId (to attach to an existing conversation) and explicitly states the draft is not sent, implying this tool is for draft creation only. It lacks an explicit alternative comparison because no other draft tool exists among siblings, but it conveys the core usage context well.

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