create_draft

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

Annotations only include destructiveHint=false, so description carries the burden. It discloses local SQLite persistence, optional sync to the Proton Drafts IMAP folder, and the return of a draftId for later operations, adding meaningful context beyond the annotation.

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, front-loaded with action and storage, then usage, alternatives, and return value. Every sentence earns its place with no waste.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explains the draftId return and the draft lifecycle (update, sync, send). With a rich input schema and clear alternatives, the description is complete enough for correct tool selection and invocation.

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 91%, so the schema handles most parameter meaning. The description adds context for sync behavior and return value but does not detail individual params; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Save a new outbound message as a local draft in SQLite', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools. It also explicitly contrasts with create_reply_draft and create_forward_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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use to compose and review before sending' and directs to specific alternatives for replying ('create_reply_draft') and forwarding ('create_forward_draft').

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