export_email_draft

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and non-open-world behavior. The description adds genuinely useful side-effect boundaries: it produces .eml content and a mailto link but does not send or log a contact, which is meaningful context an agent could not derive from the annotations alone.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler. The primary output (.eml content and mailto link) is front-loaded, and the negative constraint follows immediately after.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not enumerate return values, and it correctly focuses on the action and its side-effect limits. The only real gap is the absence of guidance on draft_id and on when to prefer this over the related get_email_draft/update_email_draft siblings.

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% and the description never mentions draft_id or its expected format. With only one self-evident parameter the risk is low, so this is adequate rather than deficient, but no value is added beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb and resource: it returns .eml file content plus a mailto link for the user's mail app. This is concrete enough for an agent to understand the export action. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with the sibling get_email_draft, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

"Review and send there" implies the intended workflow (export, then send manually in a mail client), and it clarifies what the tool does not do. However, it never states when to choose this over get_email_draft or update_email_draft, leaving the sibling selection to inference.

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