mail_create_reply_draft

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

The description discloses the side effect of creating a draft and the prefilling behavior, which adds value beyond the minimal annotations. However, it does not detail error handling, permission requirements, or behavior for invalid message IDs.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core action. Every word contributes to the purpose without extraneous information.

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 5 parameters and the absence of an output schema, the description lacks essential context such as parameter semantics, prerequisites, and side effects beyond draft creation. The agent may struggle to use the tool correctly without additional information.

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?

With only 20% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by explaining parameters like mailboxPath, replyToAll, and accountName, but it does not. Only additionalContent's purpose is implied through the description of prefilling quoted content.

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 action (create a reply draft), the target (existing message), and the prefilled content (quoted original). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like mail_create_draft and mail_create_forward_draft.

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 for replying with quoted content but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as mail_create_draft or mail_create_forward_draft. No guidance on when not to use it is provided.

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