update_draft

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose a mutation ('Replace') plus a meaningful side effect: 'Invalidates any staged approval.' However, it does not mention reversibility, permission requirements, or what happens to existing draft metadata.

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 short sentences with no fluff, and the key side effect is front-loaded in the second sentence. The '(unconfigured)' prefix is an unnecessary artifact, but it does not substantially harm readability.

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 7-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, this is incomplete. It omits return behavior, failure modes, account handling, and the meaning of 'staged approval,' leaving an agent to guess at operational details.

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 coverage is 0% and the description adds almost no parameter-level meaning. 'Draft's content' loosely refers to the subject/body fields but gives no guidance on cc, reply_to_message_id, account, or draft_id semantics.

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?

States a specific action on a specific resource: 'Replace a draft's content.' This distinguishes it from siblings like create_draft, since it modifies an existing draft. The '(unconfigured)' prefix is noise, but the core purpose remains clear.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus create_draft, stage_send, or send. The description implies updating an existing draft, but it does not state prerequisites (e.g., draft must already exist) or scenarios where another sibling is more appropriate.

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