Create Mail Draft

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the required delegated Mail.ReadWrite permission and explicitly states the draft is not sent. This is useful behavioral context, though it does not mention side effects like saving to the Drafts folder or return values.

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 one focused sentence followed by Chinese intent aliases. It front-loads the core purpose and permission requirement. No wasted words; the additional Chinese text is compact and serves multilingual support without bloating the definition.

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 6-parameter draft tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides the essential context: what it does, permission needed, and the non-sending guarantee. It lacks details on where the draft is stored or what the response contains, but these are not critical for tool selection. Overall, the description is largely complete for its complexity.

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% for all 6 parameters, so per the rubric baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level info beyond what the schema already provides, but since the schema is complete, no deduction is needed.

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 verb 'Create', the resource 'email draft', and the key distinction 'without sending it'. This distinguishes it from siblings like mail_send and mail_reply, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 phrase 'without sending it' provides clear context that this tool is for drafting emails when the user wants to prepare content but not transmit it yet. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., mail_send) or provide explicit exclusion scenarios, so it misses the top score.

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