draft_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the draft follows send's MIME rules and from_identity behavior, but it does not explain what those rules entail, whether the operation mutates state, what side effects occur, or what auth/permissions are needed. Much is left to inference.

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 a single concise sentence with the core action front-loaded and no wasted words. However, it is so terse that it sacrifices necessary detail for a tool with 10 parameters.

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?

Given the tool's complexity — 10 parameters, no annotations, no parameter descriptions — a one-sentence description is severely incomplete. The output schema may cover return values, but the description fails to explain parameter semantics, side effects, usage context, or how this differs from sibling draft/send tools, so an agent cannot reliably invoke it correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only references from_identity's similarity to send and vague MIME rules. It does not clarify the meaning of required parameters like to, subject, or account, nor optional ones like attachments_json or thread_id. This leaves the agent guessing beyond the schema titles.

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 action ('Create a draft') and the resource, and references send's MIME rules, which helps situate it among email tools. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from the sibling tool draft_send, keeping it from being a perfect 5.

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like send or draft_send. The only signal is the verb 'create', which implies the agent wants a draft rather than sending, but no concrete scenarios or exclusions are provided.

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