gmail_create_draft

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

Annotations already declare the write profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the safety baseline is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful trait beyond them: the operation requires user approval. It stops there, saying nothing about what happens on rejection or whether anything is sent.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the purpose leads and the constraint follows. It is under-specified rather than padded, so the low information density is a completeness problem, not a conciseness one.

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?

For a 9-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and non-trivial semantics (send-as validation, markdown-to-HTML derivation, signature handling), two sentences are insufficient. Nothing tells the agent what the call returns or how the approval step is triggered, leaving the structured fields to do nearly all the work.

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?

With 9 parameters and only 56% schema description coverage, the description carries real burden and adds nothing: it mentions no parameter, including the required 'reason' field, whose connection to the approval workflow goes unexplained. The schema documents body/body_markdown/send_as/include_signature well, but to/cc/bcc/subject are bare.

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 and resource ('Create a Gmail draft'), so the agent knows exactly what it does. However, it does not differentiate from close siblings like gmail_reply_draft, gmail_reply_all_draft, or gmail_create_draft_with_attachments, so selection among those is left to the name alone.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It never says to use this for a brand-new draft rather than gmail_reply_draft for a response, nor when to prefer the with_attachments variant. 'Requires user approval' is a behavioral note, not usage guidance.

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