imap_save_draft

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions that the email is saved as a draft and not sent, but fails to mention authentication requirements, whether the operation is reversible, rate limits, or any side effects. This is insufficient 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?

The description is exactly two sentences, no unnecessary words, and provides the core information efficiently. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

The tool has 14 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description is minimal. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or how drafts are managed (e.g., overwriting behavior). Relying on imap_send_email for field details is insufficient for completeness.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional semantics beyond saying 'Takes the same fields as imap_send_email', which does not enhance understanding of parameter usage or constraints.

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 'save' and the resource 'email as a draft', and explicitly distinguishes from sending by saying '(no send)'. It also references the sibling tool imap_send_email to indicate field compatibility, making the 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 description implies that the tool is used for saving drafts without sending, and points to imap_send_email for field details. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., imap_send_email), nor does it provide context on when not to use it.

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