saveGmailDraft

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool creates a draft and optionally supports replies to existing threads, but it does not disclose side effects, return values, authentication requirements, or that the draft is saved to the user's Gmail Drafts folder. This is basic transparency but lacks depth.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the core action. It avoids redundancy and clearly communicates the essential information without excess verbiage.

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?

The schema fully documents all parameters, and the description explains the tool's purpose and reply feature. However, since there is no output schema, the description does not clarify what the tool returns (e.g., a draft ID) or any prerequisites for use. This leaves some gaps in completeness.

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 input schema provides descriptions for all 7 parameters (100% coverage), so the schema already handles parameter semantics well. The description adds minimal extra meaning by mentioning the reply-to-thread capability, but it does not elaborate further. Thus, the 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 states the tool's function with a specific verb ('creates and saves') and resource ('a draft email in the user's Gmail account'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like sendGmailEmail by emphasizing the draft aspect and optional reply capability.

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 clearly implies this tool is for creating drafts rather than immediately sending emails ('can be edited and sent later'), which provides context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusions, preventing a score of 5.

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