Save Outreach Draft

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers the most important behavioral disclosure: this tool never sends anything. It makes the mutation boundary explicit (save-only, no transmission), which is exactly the kind of behavior an agent must not get wrong. Minor gaps remain — it doesn't disclose overwrite/conflict behavior for existing drafts or persistence semantics — but the critical non-sending trait is clearly covered.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: the first states the core purpose, the second delivers the essential 'nothing is sent' disclaimer plus the hand-off workflow. Front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 that an output schema exists (so return values are covered structurally) and the description covers purpose, non-sending behavior, and the hand-off to send_email, little is missing for an agent to use this correctly. The only absent context is conflict/overwrite semantics, which is a minor gap for a draft-saving tool.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters (body, subject, to_email, contact_id). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies — the schema does the heavy lifting and the description does not need to compensate.

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 ('Store') + resource ('outreach email') + scope ('for a contact'), and explicitly disambiguates from the sibling send_email with 'Nothing is sent here.' An agent can instantly tell this tool saves a draft rather than transmits it, which is the critical distinction among the siblings.

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?

Provides explicit workflow guidance: show the draft to the user, revise it with them, and only call send_email with confirm=True upon approval. It names the alternative tool and the exact condition for switching to it, leaving nothing to inference.

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