Replace the contents of an existing Gmail draft, including recipients, subject, and body, to revise unsent email content before review.
Replace the contents of an existing draft.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cc | No | ||
| to | Yes | ||
| bcc | No | ||
| body | Yes | ||
| subject | No | ||
| draft_id | Yes | ||
| reply_to_message_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description bears full behavioral burden. Saying 'Replace' usefully implies full overwrite rather than partial patch, but it says nothing about permissions, whether omitted optional fields (cc, bcc, subject) are cleared or preserved, or what the call returns.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined concision.
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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, one sentence is not enough. The agent cannot determine required-field behavior, null semantics, or side effects without guessing.
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% across 7 parameters, and the description adds no meaning for any of them. Critical ambiguities remain unaddressed, notably whether nullable fields like subject, cc, and bcc are wiped when omitted and what reply_to_message_id does.
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 states a specific verb and resource ('Replace the contents of an existing draft'), which cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling create_draft by signaling modification of an already-existing draft. It is clear but does not name the sibling or scope the operation further.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus create_draft or list_drafts, and no stated preconditions (e.g. that the draft must already exist, or whether an ID must be obtained first). An agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.