Send Approved Inbox Reply Draft

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

Annotations already indicate destructive and idempotent behavior. The description adds that the tool sends a draft and that stale drafts cause conflicts, providing useful behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 extremely concise at two sentences, front-loading the action and key constraints. Every word contributes value.

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 the tool has 4 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential action, precondition, and error condition. It could mention the output, but the output schema fills that gap. The sibling tools provide context.

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 description does not elaborate on individual parameters beyond what the schema provides. With 75% schema coverage, the description adds minimal extra meaning, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 (send a reply draft) and specifies it is for a previously created safe draft. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_inbox_reply_draft (creation) and reply_to_inbox_thread (direct reply), making the purpose 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 explicitly requires explicit user approval before calling, and warns about stale drafts returning a conflict. While it does not mention alternatives, the precondition is clearly communicated.

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