Draft Operations

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: delete moves to Recoverable Items (restorable for a limited time), send counts against the send-email session limit with 0 refusing all sends, update/send/delete refuse non-draft ids, and reply/forward drafts are deleted if a recipient is outside the allowlist. This is exactly the kind of consequence detail annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loads the lifecycle and destructive scope in the first clause, then walks actions compactly. Dense and information-rich with little waste, though the long allowlist sentence is somewhat sprawling and could be tightened.

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 an 11-parameter, 7-action tool with no output schema, the description covers action semantics, id requirements, dry-run/mail-tips flags, allowlist enforcement, and even return shape (draft vs status). Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: dryRun previews only on create and is refused elsewhere, checkRecipients runs mail-tips first, comment cannot combine with body, and the recipient allowlist scope across actions. Minor overlap with schema text but net additive.

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?

Names a specific resource (draft lifecycle) and enumerates all seven actions with their individual effects, so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It clearly separates itself from siblings like send-email and update-email by framing the tool as draft-centric with send/delete as lifecycle endpoints.

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?

Gives per-action conditions: create for new drafts, update for patching by id, send/delete require an unsent draft id, reply/reply-all/forward build from a message id. It does not explicitly route the agent to sibling send-email/update-email when no draft exists, so the boundary with those tools is implied rather than stated.

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