Draft Gmail Message

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

Annotations already indicate non-readOnly and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that the tool supports HTML and multiple recipients, but does not clarify that the draft is saved and not sent, nor does it mention the draft folder location. Given the absence of annotation contradictions, the description provides moderate additional context.

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 that efficiently conveys the core purpose and key features. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words.

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 tool's complexity (9 parameters, required 2) and the presence of a comprehensive schema and output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it omits crucial contextual information that this is a draft (unsent) and that the draft can be sent later via other tools. This gap could lead an agent to mistake it for a sending action.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'HTML support' and 'multiple recipients' aligns with the 'content_type' and 'to/cc/bcc' parameters, but does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 draft email'), the resource ('in the user's Gmail account'), and key features ('HTML support and multiple recipients'). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like 'draft_gmail_forward' and 'draft_gmail_reply' by focusing on direct creation rather than derived drafts.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'send_gmail_message' or 'draft_gmail_reply'. It lacks prerequisites, exclusion criteria, or context for preferring this tool over others.

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