draft_email

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

No annotations provided, so description must convey behavior. It clearly states the action and return value (Draft ID, message ID, summary). Does not mention side effects, authentication, or error handling, but the tool is straightforward and non-destructive.

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?

Concise and well-structured: one-line purpose, bulleted parameter list, then return description. No fluff, every sentence adds value. Front-loaded with the most important information.

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 6-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers all parameters and return fields. Lacks error conditions or prerequisites, but is otherwise complete for a simple draft creation tool.

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 fully compensates by explaining each parameter, including format (comma-separated for 'to'), optionality (cc, bcc, body_type), and default values. Adds significant meaning beyond schema titles and types.

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?

Starts with 'Create a new email draft in Gmail.' Clearly states verb (create), resource (email draft), and context (Gmail). Distinguishes from siblings like 'send_new_email' and 'get_email_draft' by focusing on draft creation.

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 versus alternatives. The purpose is implied by the tool name and description, but there is no mention of when not to use or which sibling tool to prefer for sending vs. drafting.

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