create_draft

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'create' which implies a write operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires authentication, where the draft is stored (e.g., in a drafts folder), if it's immediately visible in email clients, or what happens on failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste: 'Create a new draft email'. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable. Every word earns its place, and there's no redundant or verbose phrasing.

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 complexity (a mutation tool creating email drafts), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., a draft ID, success status, or error details), behavioral constraints, or integration context. For a tool with 6 parameters and mutation behavior, this minimal description leaves too much unspecified for reliable agent use.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all 6 parameters with clear descriptions (e.g., 'to' as 'Recipient email address(es), comma-separated'). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to guidelines, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 verb ('create') and resource ('new draft email'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'send_email' (which sends) and 'update_draft' (which modifies existing drafts). However, it doesn't specify that this creates a draft rather than a sent email, which is somewhat implied but could be more explicit.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an email account), when to choose 'create_draft' over 'send_email' (for later editing vs. immediate sending), or how it relates to 'update_draft' (for modifying existing drafts). Without this context, the agent must infer usage from tool names alone.

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