gmail_draft_compose

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly reveals the key behavioral trait — that drafts are created but never sent — which prevents the agent from assuming a full send pipeline exists. This goes beyond what a generic 'create draft' description would provide, though it omits details like draft location or return value.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the critical caveat (draft-only, no send capability) is stated immediately after in the same breath. Every word earns its place.

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 a simple 4-parameter tool with no enums, nested objects, or siblings, the description plus fully-documented schema cover the essential operating context. The draft-vs-send distinction is the most important edge case for an agent to know, and it is explicit. An output schema is absent, but the description compensates reasonably well.

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 the baseline is 3 even though the tool description itself adds no parameter-level detail. The schema already documents each parameter sufficiently, including the nuance that 'to' may be left empty for the owner to fill in. The description does not need to repeat or expand on them.

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?

"Create a Gmail draft" states a specific verb plus an unambiguous resource, and immediately clarifies the draft-only scope. The clarification that the server has no send capability actively prevents an agent from mistakenly believing this tool can deliver email.

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 establishes a clear workflow: the agent creates the draft, and the owner reviews and sends it in Gmail. However, there are no explicit use-this-when or when-not conditions, and with no sibling tools listed, the guidance is contextual rather than directive.

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