Prepare Proton draft

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses key behavioral details: the action stages a proposal rather than creating a final draft, the proposal expires, and it requires approval via local CLI before commit_approved_draft. This adds meaningful context about side effects and the lifecycle of the prepared draft, which annotations alone do not convey.

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 two sentences with no filler. The core action and key constraint are front-loaded, and the follow-up requirement is stated efficiently. Every clause 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?

The description covers the essential workflow, approval requirement, expiration, and security constraint. Given the output schema exists and sibling tools reveal the attachment workflow, the description is mostly complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, though adding a brief reference to how attachment tokens are produced would make it fully self-contained.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it only vaguely references 'recipients and attachment tokens' without explaining individual parameters like cc, bcc, subject, body_text, or how to obtain attachment_tokens. The parameter names and schema types offer some basic clues, but the description provides little additional semantic meaning for each field.

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's purpose: 'Prepare, but do not create, a Proton draft.' It names the specific resource (Proton draft) and distinguishes the action from creation, which also differentiates it from the sibling tool commit_approved_draft. The scope is precise and understandable without needing the schema.

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 explicit usage conditions: recipients and attachment tokens must come from the user's request, not from email content, and the draft proposal requires CLI approval before commit_approved_draft. This tells an agent when and how to use the tool, and implicitly when not to use it, by referencing the required follow-up workflow.

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