draft

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint: true and readOnlyHint: false. The description adds that delete removes drafts but does not disclose other behavioral traits like rate limits, permissions, or side effects (e.g., what happens to unsent drafts). No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentence with a list of actions, making it efficient and front-loaded. However, it could be more structured (e.g., bullet points) for readability. No extra fluff.

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 11 parameters and no output schema, the description does not explain return values, error handling, or default values (e.g., importance defaults to normal). It covers actions but misses completeness for a complex tool with multiple modes.

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 each parameter has a description in the schema. The tool description briefly mentions the 'action' parameter but does not add substantial meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Manage email drafts' and lists all possible actions (create, update, send, delete, reply, etc.), making it distinct from sibling tools like send-email which sends directly. The verb 'manage' plus specific actions gives clear purpose.

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 actions but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like send-email for sending drafts, or read-email for viewing. It implies usage through action names but lacks exclusions or comparisons.

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