manage_drafts

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

No annotations provided, so description must compensate. It explains actions but omits side effects (e.g., 'send' will actually transmit email), auth requirements, rate limits, or error conditions. 'Returns: Formatted output based on action' is vague.

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 well-structured with bullet points for arguments. Front-loaded with purpose and action list. Each sentence adds value, though could trim the 'Args' list slightly without losing clarity.

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?

Tool is complex (9 params, 5 actions). Description covers parameter roles but lacks specifics: e.g., 'list' output format, 'open' behavior, or error handling. Output schema exists but description doesn't reference it. Some gaps remain.

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%, forcing description to explain all 9 parameters. It adds meaning beyond schema: required fields for actions (subject, to, body for create), comma-separated recipients, and details on from_address including default behavior.

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 it manages draft emails and enumerates specific actions (list, create, send, open, delete). The verb 'manage' combined with resource 'drafts' and explicit action list leaves no ambiguity about scope.

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 siblings like compose_email or create_rich_email_draft. The description implies usage for draft operations but doesn't offer alternative recommendations or exclusions.

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