Save as Draft

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only repeats the basic action without any detail on side effects, permissions, whether existing drafts are overwritten, or what happens upon success. This is a mutation tool and the description offers zero behavioral context beyond the name.

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 a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, it is so minimal that it borders on under-specification, though that is captured under completeness rather than conciseness.

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 tool with five parameters, two required, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, whether it creates a new draft or updates an existing one, or any side effects. An agent cannot anticipate the outcome or prerequisites from this description alone.

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 five parameters. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter relationships, constraints, or expected format. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter semantics.

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 ('save'), resource ('email'), and result ('as a draft'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like send_email, list_drafts, and delete_draft. An agent can immediately tell what the tool does and what it does not do.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it should be used instead of send_email when not ready to send, nor does it exclude any contexts. The intended usage is only implicitly understood from the action itself.

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