Save a new email message to the IMAP Drafts folder without sending it. Compose with recipients, subject, and body to store a draft for later review or transmission.
Save a new message in the IMAP Drafts folder. Does not send. From is the linked account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cc | No | ||
| to | Yes | Comma-separated recipients | |
| body | Yes | ||
| subject | Yes | ||
| account_id | No | Account id from list_accounts; omit when only one mailbox is linked |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining side effects. It clearly states that it saves a draft and does not send, and notes the sender is the linked account. It does not mention return values or error behavior, but the core effect is transparent.
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 extremely concise, using two short sentences. It contains no redundant information and is well-structured, making it easy for an agent to parse.
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 simple save operation, the description provides sufficient context: it saves a draft, does not send, and specifies the sender. It omits return values or potential error conditions, but that is not critical for a straightforward operation. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's role.
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?
Only 2 out of 5 parameters (to, account_id) have schema descriptions. The tool description itself adds some context about the sender (linked account) but does not elaborate on subject, body, or cc. Given the low schema coverage, the description does not fully compensate, though the parameter names are self-explanatory.
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 that it saves a new message in the IMAP Drafts folder and explicitly distinguishes itself from reply drafts and sending operations. It also clarifies that the sender is the linked account, which is specific and unambiguous.
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 it does not send, which helps differentiate it from send_draft. It also specifies that the message is a new one (not a reply), distinguishing it from save_reply_draft. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, though the wording strongly implies it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.