gmail_draft

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Create a Gmail draft' makes the mutating nature clear, and 'All fields are optional' hints that incomplete drafts are acceptable. However, it does not disclose side effects (e.g., the draft appearing in Gmail), permissions, or success/error behavior, leaving some ambiguity.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no fluff. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the action, the second clarifies optionality for work-in-progress drafts.

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?

While the tool is simple and has an output schema, the description is minimal. It lacks context about the drafting workflow (e.g., that drafts can later be sent via gmail_send_draft) and does not explicitly state that the email will not be sent. For an agent navigating many Gmail siblings, this could lead to misuse.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only states 'All fields are optional,' providing no field-level meaning, format expectations (e.g., CSV recipients), or distinction between body and html. Parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description adds minimal value.

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 states 'Create a Gmail draft' with a specific verb and resource. It is clear that this tool creates a draft rather than sending an email, which differentiates it from siblings like gmail_send and gmail_send_draft, though it does not explicitly mention those alternatives.

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 phrase 'All fields are optional for work-in-progress drafts' implies the tool is for drafting emails that may be incomplete. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like gmail_send or gmail_send_draft, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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