create_draft

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool creates a new draft (implying a write operation) and returns specific fields ({id, subject, to, date}), which is helpful. However, it lacks details on permissions needed, error conditions, rate limits, or whether the draft is saved automatically. The behavioral context is partially covered but incomplete for a mutation tool.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by return values and optional parameter usage. Both sentences earn their place by adding distinct information (creation action and threading behavior). No wasted words, and the structure is logical and efficient.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description partially compensates by stating the return fields. However, for a mutation tool with 6 parameters, it lacks details on error handling, side effects (e.g., where the draft is stored), or interaction with siblings like 'update_draft'. The context is adequate but has clear gaps for safe and effective use.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning the optional 'in_reply_to' parameter and its effect (sets headers automatically), but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Create a new email draft'), resource ('in the Drafts folder'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'update_draft' (creation vs. modification) and 'draft_reply' (general draft vs. threaded reply). The verb+resource combination is precise 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 provides clear context for when to use the optional 'in_reply_to' parameter ('to create a threaded reply draft'), which implicitly distinguishes it from creating a standalone draft. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'draft_reply' or 'update_draft', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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