create_draft

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It correctly states the action (create draft) but does not disclose potential side effects, such as whether the draft is automatically saved or if it replaces an existing draft. It does note that body supports plain text or HTML, which adds some transparency.

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 concise and uses a clear bulleted Args format. It front-loads the purpose statement. However, it could be slightly shorter by omitting redundancies (e.g., 'Args:' is clear from context).

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 the tool has 6 optional parameters and an output schema, the description adequately covers all parameters' usage. It does not mention prerequisites like authentication, but that is implied by sibling auth tools. The description is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds significant value by explaining each parameter's meaning and constraints. For example, it specifies that 'to' accepts multiple addresses separated by commas, and that 'importance' accepts low, normal, or high. This compensates well for the missing schema descriptions.

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 tool creates a new draft email in the Drafts folder, using specific verb 'Tạo' (create) and resource 'email nháp mới' (new draft email). This distinguishes it from siblings like update_draft, send_draft, and list_drafts.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that after creating a draft, one should use send_draft to send it, nor does it specify when not to use it (e.g., for updating existing drafts).

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