Commit approved Proton draft

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

The description adds valuable side-effect context: after success, attachment tokens are destroyed and cannot be reused. However, the annotations declare destructiveHint=false, while the description says tokens 'are destroyed'. This is a direct contradiction, so per the rubric the score must be 1.

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?

Three sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, followed by a non-goal and a critical side effect. Every 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?

For a single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the required precondition, the non-sending guarantee, and token destruction side effects. Some ambiguity remains about the source or role of draft_id, but the overall context is largely sufficient.

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%, and the description never mentions draft_id or explains where it comes from or how it relates to the approval flow. The parameter name and 32-hex pattern are mildly self-explanatory, but the description adds no parameter-level guidance.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Create a Proton draft') plus a key precondition ('only after matching out-of-band local approval'). It also clarifies what it does NOT do ('never sends email'). It is clear, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling prepare_draft.

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 clearly states when this tool should be used: only after out-of-band local approval. It also prevents misuse by stating that it never sends email. However, it names no explicit alternative or exclusion condition.

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