update_draft

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

Annotations indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) with no destructive hint. The description adds 'replace with new content' implying full overwrite, but doesn't specify whether omitted fields are reset or preserved. With annotations present, the bar is lowered, but more detail on side effects would help.

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?

Extremely concise: one sentence, no filler. Every word is necessary.

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?

The description is too brief for a tool with 8 parameters. It omits important details like whether partial updates are allowed, how missing fields are handled (reset vs. preserve), and any preconditions (e.g., draft must exist). No output schema is present, so description could compensate but doesn't.

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 100%, so each parameter is documented. The description adds no extra meaning beyond stating 'replace with new content', which implies all fields may be affected but doesn't clarify partial updates.

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 tool updates an existing draft, with a specific verb ('update') and resource ('draft'). It distinguishes well from sibling tools like create_draft, delete_draft, and send_draft.

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 alternatives. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., existing draft ID) or scenarios where this tool is preferred over other draft-related tools.

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