Skapa svarsutkast

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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false) and do not explain behavior. The description adds substantial context: nothing is sent, the draft lands in the Drafts mailbox, threading is achieved via In-Reply-To/References, recipients are derived from Reply-To/From, and ValueError is raised for missing originals or refused saves.

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?

Well front-loaded: the draft-vs-send distinction leads, followed by construction details, args, returns, and raises. The reply-construction paragraph is dense but every sentence adds real information about threading and quoting, so little is wasted despite the length.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description documents the return shape ({uid, mailbox: Drafts, message_id}) and the error cases. Combined with complete parameter documentation, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 0% and there are 8 parameters, so the description must carry the full burden — which it does. It explains each parameter, including the non-obvious constraint that UID is per-mailbox and mailbox is mandatory, and that bcc is stored in the draft and quote_original defaults to True.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (create a reply draft) and immediately delimits it: it creates a draft rather than sending, and is built exactly like reply_to_email. An agent can distinguish it from create_draft, create_forward_draft, and reply_to_email without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative paths: review and send in Proton, or send from here via send_draft once approved. The sibling reply_to_email is named as the behavioral template. When-to-use and the follow-up action are both stated rather than implied.

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