draft_email

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action and does not mention whether the email is saved as a draft rather than sent, any side effects, required permissions, or limitations. It is not misleading, so it avoids a score of 1.

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, clear sentence with no filler or repetition. It is well front-loaded, but it is so terse that it omits useful qualifying information that would justify a perfect score.

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?

Despite having 10 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description offers only a bare action statement. It lacks context about the draft's relationship to sending, threading/reply semantics, and how it differs from sibling email tools. The schema covers parameters, so the description is not completely inadequate, but it is not sufficient for confident tool selection in complex scenarios.

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 all 10 parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the baseline of 3 applies when the schema handles parameter documentation thoroughly.

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 ('Create') and resource ('an email draft'), clearly identifying the tool's action. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like send_email or modify_email, but the 'draft' wording implies a non-sent email, providing some distinction.

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 such as send_email, modify_email, or read_email. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions given, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and sibling context.

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