create_email_draft

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key non-destructive trait ('without sending it'), but says nothing about authorization requirements, where the draft is stored, or what happens on failure. Adequate but with clear gaps for a mutation tool.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and its non-sending nature, then usage, then parameters. No filler; 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?

With no output schema, the description does not indicate what is returned (e.g., a draft id), which an agent might want for follow-up edits. Otherwise it is complete for a create-draft tool: it covers the operation, the when-to-use, and the full parameter set.

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%, so the schema already documents every field including required vs optional status. The description merely restates the required and optional parameter names without adding format or constraint meaning beyond the schema. 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a Gmail draft') and immediately qualifies scope with 'without sending it,' which cleanly separates it from the sibling send_email. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

'Use this when the user wants to review or edit the message first' gives a clear usage condition that implies the contrast with send_email. It stops short of explicitly naming send_email as the alternative for immediate delivery, so it is strong context rather than full when/when-not routing.

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