create_draft

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

Description discloses local save and optional remote sync, mentions returned draftId for subsequent operations. No annotation contradictions; destructiveHint=false is consistent. Provides sufficient behavioral context beyond the sparse annotations.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste, front-loaded with action and resource, clearly structured.

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?

With 11 parameters and no output schema, description covers creation flow and post-creation actions. Lacks details on error handling or edge cases (e.g., sync failure), but adequate for a draft creation tool.

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 high (91%), so description adds limited per-parameter value. The description's overall context complements the schema but doesn't elaborate on individual parameter semantics beyond what schema already provides.

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?

Clearly states 'Save a new outbound message as a local draft in SQLite', specifies optional sync. Distinguishes from siblings by recommending create_reply_draft and create_forward_draft for specific use cases.

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?

Explicitly advises when to use alternatives: 'Prefer create_reply_draft when replying... create_forward_draft when forwarding.' Also indicates follow-up actions: 'Returns a draftId for later update, sync, or send via send_draft.'

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