sync_draft_to_remote

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

With only destructiveHint:false in annotations, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it is a 'force-push' (indicating an overwrite/forced action), it returns the remote UID, and it will be rejected when a specific env var is false. This goes well beyond the minimal annotation and discloses important conditions and outcomes.

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 tight sentences: the first states the action and return value, the second gives usage conditions and an exclusion. Every word earns its place, no fluff or repetition. It is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 one required parameter and no output schema, this description is complete: it explains what it does, when to use it, a critical rejection condition, and the return value. The context is sufficient for an agent to decide and invoke correctly without ambiguity.

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 coverage is 100% for the single draftId parameter, and the schema already provides a precise description of where the ID comes from. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a specific operation: 'Force-push a locally saved draft to the Proton Drafts IMAP folder and return the remote UID.' It uses a precise verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from siblings like create_draft, update_draft, and list_remote_drafts by specifying the force-push and remote UID return. The purpose is 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 explicitly states when to use: 'Use when a draft was created with syncToRemote:false or when the automatic sync failed.' It also provides a clear exclusion: 'Do NOT use this if PROTONMAIL_ALLOW_REMOTE_DRAFT_SYNC is false — the call will be rejected.' This gives concrete, actionable guidance with a conditional rejection, which is exactly what an agent needs.

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