update_draft

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry full burden. It lacks details on idempotency, partial update behavior (merge vs replace), authentication requirements, and error handling (e.g., missing draft).

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?

Description is reasonably concise with clear Args section, but the use of Vietnamese may reduce clarity for non-Vietnamese agents. Could be shortened by removing redundant 'bỏ qua nếu không muốn thay đổi' repetitions.

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?

As a mutation tool with no annotations, description omits return value (output schema exists but not described) and prerequisites (e.g., user must be authenticated, draft must exist). Incomplete context for safe invocation.

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%, but description adds meaning for all 5 optional parameters, explaining their purpose and that skipping leaves them unchanged. The required message_id is also explained.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Cập nhật' (update) and resource 'email nháp đang tồn tại' (existing draft email). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_draft and send_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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_draft or edit after sending. No exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.

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