create_draft

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the draft is not sent, implying non-destructive mutation, but does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens with existing drafts. The behavioral profile is under-described for a creation tool.

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 very concise: one sentence stating the core purpose followed by a clean bullet-style list of arguments. Every element earns its place, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 complexity (8 optional parameters, no annotations, no schema descriptions), the description covers the purpose, basic usage rule, and explains each parameter. The presence of an output schema further reduces the need to describe return values. It is complete for its context, though usage guidelines could be more thorough.

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%, but the description adds meaningful context for all 8 parameters, e.g., 'Recipients (comma-separated)' and 'Space-separated Message-IDs'. This compensates for the schema gap, though additional details (e.g., format validation) could improve.

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 tool saves a new email as a draft and specifies it is not sent. It uses a specific verb ('save') and resource ('email draft'), immediately distinguishing it from siblings like send_draft or send_email.

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 a clear usage guideline: at least one of 'to', 'subject', or a body field should be provided. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like edit_draft or send_draft, missing an opportunity to guide when to use this tool over siblings.

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