gmail_create_draft

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

Annotations already flag this as a write operation (readOnlyHint=false); the description adds the key behavioral guarantee that no email is sent and discloses the returned draft/message ids. This is useful context beyond the structured annotations and does not contradict them.

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 two compact sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The return-type line is short and useful.

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 create-draft operation, the description plus the annotated safety profile and output schema are largely sufficient. It could mention routing to gmail_send_message for actual sending, but that is a minor omission.

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 description offers no parameter guidance, and the context signal reports 0% schema description coverage for the top-level `params` parameter, so the description needed to compensate but did not. The nested schema does label to/subject/body, which partially mitigates the gap.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Create a draft email' and immediately scopes it with 'without sending it,' distinguishing it from sibling gmail_send_message. The intent 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 'without sending it' qualifier gives clear context that this tool is for preparing unsent messages, which implicitly separates it from gmail_send_message. It does not explicitly name an alternative or state when-not-to-use, so it stops short of a 5.

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