gmail_draft_update

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

The description says 'overwrite' implying destructive mutation but does not clarify if fields not specified are reset or keep previous values. No disclosure of idempotency, authorization, or side effects. With no annotations, the description carries full burden but falls short.

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 only five words, which is too concise for a tool with 8 parameters. It lacks any structure or detail, leading to underspecification.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and 0% parameter description coverage, the description is severely incomplete. It does not cover return values, error conditions, or how the update affects existing draft fields.

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 0%, yet the description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema titles (e.g., to, subject). It does not explain formats, constraints, or behavior of optional fields like cc and bcc.

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 action (overwrite) and the resource (existing draft), distinguishing it from sibling tools like gmail_draft_create (create) and gmail_draft_send (send).

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that for creating a new draft, gmail_draft_create should be used, or any conditions for update.

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