draft_customer_email

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

The description explicitly details a critical behavioral trait: the draft will never be sent automatically and requires human review. This highly valuable context is not provided by the annotations or schema and prevents dangerous misinvocation.

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 definition is extremely concise, using a single sentence to explain the tool's function and constraints without any wasted language or extraneous detail.

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?

For a low-complexity tool (2 required parameters), the description provides sufficient information regarding its function, state, and operational constraints to allow an agent to select and invoke it safely. Minor details like input string length or ID format are not addressed, but are not critical for initial usage.

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?

Given that schema description coverage is 0%, the description adds significant value by defining the semantic context of the input: the `body` is a 'reply to the customer' and the `case_id` ties it to a customer case. This helps the AI understand the functional meaning of the required parameters.

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 identifies the specific action (Save a DRAFT reply) and the resource involved (customer). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that merely retrieve case data or update existing records.

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?

It implies clear usage guidance by stating that the tool is for drafting purposes, effectively guiding the agent to use this tool when immediate sending is not appropriate. It serves as a clear instruction on the tool's intended use case.

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