write_email_draft

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action without mentioning side effects (e.g., draft saved to Gmail, not sent), required permissions, or return behavior. The agent is left unaware of these critical factors.

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 sentence, making it concise. However, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, earning a mid-range score for structure given the lack of informative content.

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 absence of output schema and annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain return values, error conditions, or confirmation of draft creation, leaving the agent without full context for invoking the tool.

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 0%, and the description does not add meaning beyond the parameter names. It does not clarify expected formats for email, subject, or body, nor any constraints like character limits or encoding.

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 ('Create a Gmail draft') and the required inputs (recipient, subject, body). It distinguishes the tool's purpose as creating a draft rather than sending, though no sibling tools exist for comparison.

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, nor any conditions for use. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as authentication or the difference between creating a draft and sending an email.

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