manage_drafts

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior but only lists actions and their required parameters. It mentions 'open' creates a visible window, but lacks details on consequences (e.g., whether 'delete' permanently removes, or 'send' actually dispatches the email). No confirmation or error states are described.

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 well-structured with an Args section and a Returns line. It is relatively concise given the number of parameters and actions, but could be slightly more terse by removing the 'Returns' line which adds little value.

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 has 5 actions, 8 parameters, and an output schema, the description covers actions and parameters adequately but falls short on return behavior ('Formatted output based on action' is vague). It does not address error handling or edge cases, so while schema exists, the description could be more complete.

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?

All 8 parameters are explained with their purpose and required context (e.g., 'subject' required for create, 'draft_subject' required for send/open/delete). Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description fully compensates by adding meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 manages draft emails and lists five specific actions (list, create, send, open, delete), making the purpose explicit. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'compose_email' by covering multiple draft operations in one tool.

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 provides context for when to use the 'open' action versus 'send' (e.g., 'Use open to open a draft in a visible compose window for review before sending'). However, it does not compare to sibling tools like 'compose_email' for creating drafts or advise against misuse.

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