Save or update a Gmail draft reply

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It explains default behaviors (quoteOriginal, appendSignature) and format selection. However, it omits error scenarios, return values, and whether drafts are created vs updated, limiting transparency.

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?

Two sentences front-load the purpose and key defaults, with no redundant text. The structure is efficient and easy to parse.

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 12-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is incomplete. It explains core behavior but omits half the parameters, error handling, and return format, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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 add value. It covers messageId, to, subject, body, format, quoteOriginal, and appendSignature, but only partially. Missing cc, bcc, html, accountAlias, chatScope, and body is incorrectly stated as required, contradicting the 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 saves or updates a Gmail draft reply for a thread without sending, which distinguishes it from send tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'set_draft' which likely handles single-account drafts.

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 lists required parameters but provides no guidance on when to use this multi-account version vs alternatives. It does not explain context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name.

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