draft_reply

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool never auto-sends, refuses certain categories, and instructs treating untrusted email-body fields as data rather than executable instructions. It also mentions the response's safety block, providing rich behavioral context beyond typical mutation hints.

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?

Five sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by safety constraints. Slight redundancy exists where the safety block restates the same refusals listed earlier, but overall each sentence 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?

Given 12 params and no output schema, the description explains core behavior well but omits the overall return format (only mentions safety block) and does not clarify how the commitment is identified or how params like focus/verbosity should be used. Adequate but with notable gaps.

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 58%, and the description adds valuable context about provenance-marked untrusted fields (e.g., body), reinforcing the schema's 'UNTRUSTED' note. However, it provides no guidance for undocumented params like id, to, focus, subject, or verbosity, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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?

Clearly states it drafts a reply that discharges a commitment owed in a message, using the specific verb 'draft' and a distinctive resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like triage and list_commitments, and the 'DRAFT ONLY' notice prevents confusion with sending.

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?

Explicitly frames when to use the tool: when there is a commitment owed in a message. It also provides when-not guidance by listing hard-stop categories (money, changed-banking, first-contact, decision, injection) that require human-only handling, and notes that it never auto-sends.

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