create_draft

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that creating a draft is the core action and that reply_to_message_id affects threading, but it does not disclose side effects, account requirements, persistence behavior, or whether creation is reversible. For a mutating tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 short and the core action is front-loaded in the first sentence. However, the '(unconfigured)' prefix is unnecessary and potentially misleading, and the reply_to_message_id guidance could have been integrated more cleanly. It is concise but not optimally structured.

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?

This is a mutating create operation with six parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description needs to supply substantial context. It only explains the primary action and one threading parameter. Missing are typical draft creation details such as recipient handling, draft persistence, response behavior, and relationship to staged-send workflows. The description is not complete enough for reliable tool invocation.

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, but it only explains reply_to_message_id. The other parameters (account, to, subject, body, cc) are left to their names and titles alone, with no added semantics, format expectations, or interaction notes. The single parameter hint is useful but does not cover the parameter space 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 states 'Create a draft', naming the primary verb and resource clearly, and adds a meaningful nuance about reply_to_message_id. The name itself already differentiates it from sibling update_draft, so the core purpose is not ambiguous. The 'unconfigured' prefix is confusing but does not obscure the stated purpose.

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 one usage hint: 'Pass reply_to_message_id to keep it in-thread', which tells the agent when to include that parameter. However, it provides no guidance on when to use create_draft versus siblings like stage_send, send, or update_draft, and no exclusions or prerequisites. Usage context is largely left to inference.

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