Ersätt utkast

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true only signals a write): it explains that omitted fields become empty and must be re-sent, which headers/parts are preserved byte-for-byte, the save-then-Trash-move ordering, the recoverability of the old draft, the new UID assignment, and the partial-failure state where the new draft is already saved. This is unusually rich behavioral disclosure for a mutation tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the one-line purpose, then clearly partitioned by ERSÄTTS / BEHÅLLS / Args / Returns / Raises. The length is largely justified by the tool's complexity, though some prose (e.g. the cid/embedded-image nuance) is denser than strictly required.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the full return shape (new uid, replaced_uid, replaced_moved_to, kept_headers, kept_attachments) and the failure modes with the exact post-failure state. Combined with the annotations covering the safety profile, 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full load, and it does: the Args block documents all 9 parameters including uid/mailbox semantics ('anger för att bekräfta att UID:t kommer därifrån'), accepted string-or-list forms for addresses, and the re-specification contract for cc/bcc/body_html. No meaningful parameter is left ambiguous.

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 precise verb+resource ('Ersätt ett utkast i Drafts med en ny version') and immediately scopes the effect ('Ingenting skickas'), which cleanly separates it from send_draft, create_draft and create_reply_draft. The agent can identify the operation without opening the 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 limits applicability ('Bara utkast i Drafts kan uppdateras') and routes the agent to the correct discovery path ('hitta dem med list_emails(mailbox="Drafts") och läs dem med get_email'). It also states a negative rule — do NOT re-run update_draft if the Trash move failed — which is exactly the when-not guidance this dimension rewards.

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