sync_draft_to_remote

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility. It describes the operation as a 'force-push' but does not elaborate on potential side effects like overwriting remote drafts, idempotency, or authorization requirements. The mention of a rejection condition adds some transparency, but overall depth is limited.

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 convey purpose, usage conditions, and a constraint (rejection scenario). No extraneous information. Every sentence 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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and usage guidance. It mentions the return value (remote UID) but does not detail the format. Given the minimal required context, it is nearly complete.

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?

The single parameter (draftId) is documented in the input schema with clear sources (create_draft, list_drafts, etc.). The description does not add further semantic value beyond the schema, so baseline of 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 clearly identifies the tool's action (force-push a locally saved draft to the Proton Drafts IMAP folder) and its output (return remote UID). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like send_draft or delete_draft by specifying the target folder and condition.

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 states when to use (draft created with syncToRemote:false or after automatic sync failure) and when not to use (if PROTONMAIL_ALLOW_REMOTE_DRAFT_SYNC is false, as the call will be rejected). This provides clear context for agent decision-making.

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