save_draft

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does communicate the core effect (saving to Drafts, not sending), but it omits other useful behavioral details such as whether an existing draft is overwritten, what the response contains, or whether account selection affects behavior.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the primary action, states the destination, and includes the key exclusion ('without sending'). Every phrase earns its place and there is no redundant or filler 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?

For a moderately complex tool with 6 parameters and no annotations, the description is somewhat thin. It omits guidance on the 'html' flag, the 'account' parameter, and how drafts are handled or returned. However, an output schema is present, so some return-value expectations may be covered elsewhere.

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 explain any parameter semantics. While parameter names like 'to', 'subject', and 'body' are self-explanatory, the description adds no value for less obvious parameters such as 'html' or 'account'. The description fails to compensate for the absent schema descriptions.

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 names a specific action ('Save an email as a draft'), a target location ('Drafts folder'), and an explicit boundary ('without sending'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like send_email and forward_email, even without naming them.

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 phrase 'without sending' implies the tool should be used when a draft is wanted rather than an immediate send, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or mention any prerequisites. Usage is implied, not explicitly guided.

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