create_draft

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the tool never sends, which is critical for safe use. However, it does not disclose whether it modifies an existing draft, requires a previously composed email, or has side effects (e.g., overwriting drafts). The behavior on input source is opaque.

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 short sentence that front-loads the key action and constraint ('never sends'). Every word is necessary and no filler is present.

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 no input schema and no output schema, the description should compensate by explaining how the email content is determined (e.g., from prior steps, clipboard, or current Mail.app state). It does not, leaving a significant gap in contextual understanding 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?

The input schema has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters because there are none. A score of 3 is appropriate as baseline for high coverage, but the description does not explain why no parameters are needed (e.g., context dependency).

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 an email to Mail.app's Drafts folder and explicitly says it never sends. This distinguishes it from send_email. However, it does not explain how the tool obtains the email content (e.g., it might use a previously read or composed email), which introduces ambiguity.

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 implies usage when you want to save a draft for manual review, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like send_email or create_email_folder. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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