draft

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

Description discloses key behaviors like dryRun and checkRecipients options, and mentions that comment cannot combine with body. Annotations already indicate destructive hint, so the description adds useful extra context without contradiction.

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?

Description is extremely concise, front-loading the main purpose, then listing actions in a clear, scannable format. No unnecessary text.

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?

The description covers all major actions, but lacks details about return values (e.g., draft ID on create) and does not explain how to combine with other tools. Given the complexity and full schema, it is mostly complete.

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% with detailed descriptions for each parameter. The tool description does not add any parameter-level semantics beyond what is already in the schema, so a baseline score of 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 enumerates specific actions (create, update, send, delete, reply/reply-all/forward), which distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like send-email that handle direct sending.

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 clear mapping of actions to their functions and hints at required parameters implicitly (e.g., id needed for update/send/delete/reply). However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like send-email or specify when not to use this tool.

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