update_draft

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds only a vague 'and/or' hint about partial updates, but it does not disclose behavior for null vs omitted fields, the html flag's effect, or what happens if the draft_id does not exist. With annotations present, the description adds minimal extra behavioral context.

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 a single sentence with no redundant phrases. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it appropriately sized for a simple update tool. Every word serves a purpose.

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?

Despite the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, 1 required, no output schema), the description provides very little surrounding context. It does not mention return value, error conditions, or the role of html. For an agent deciding when to invoke this tool and what to pass, this is insufficient.

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%, so the description must compensate for explaining parameters. It names subject and body but omits html entirely and does not clarify the meaning of null defaults or how html interacts with body. draft_id is implicitly clear, but overall the description fails to cover all parameters adequately.

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 'Update a draft's subject and/or body.' clearly identifies the action (update), resource (draft), and specific fields (subject/body). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_draft and send_draft, so the purpose is unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as create_draft for new drafts or send_draft for sending. There are no stated prerequisites, exclusions, or context. The usage is only implied by the tool name and generic phrasing.

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