edit_draft

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

No annotations provided, but the description discloses the destructive nature ('creates a new draft and destroys the old one atomically') and immutability behavior, which is sufficient for understanding side effects.

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 concise, front-loaded with purpose, and includes a well-structured argument list. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 7 parameters and no annotations, the description covers parameter behavior well. The output schema exists but is not described, which is acceptable per instructions. The description is complete enough for an agent to use correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by listing each parameter with explanation, e.g., 'Empty keeps original.' This adds meaning beyond the schema's type/default fields.

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 'Replace a draft with updated content.' and explains the JMAP immutability, distinguishing it from siblings like create_draft (new draft) and send_draft (send existing).

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 explains that empty fields keep original values, guiding usage for partial updates. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use, but the context of 'replace' and sibling names implies usage for updating existing drafts.

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