manage_drafts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It lists required parameters per action and notes the return is formatted, but lacks details on side effects (e.g., whether sending deletes the draft), permissions, or error handling.

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 well-structured with a concise overview, a clear list of arguments with inline explanations, and a returns note. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the key information is front-loaded.

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's complexity (8 parameters, 5 actions) and existence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient information for common use cases. It covers all required parameters per action and returns note, though it omits edge cases and result details.

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 0%, but the description compensates by explaining each parameter's purpose, required status for actions, and format (e.g., 'comma-separated' for recipients). It adds value beyond the raw schema.

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 'Manage draft emails' and enumerates five specific actions (list, create, send, open, delete). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like compose_email or create_rich_email_draft which focus on single actions.

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 provides explicit guidance for the 'open' action, explaining it opens a visible compose window for review. However, it does not compare with sibling tools or specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like compose_email.

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