gmail_draft

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key trait that the tool does not send, which is critical for safe usage. However, it omits other behavioral aspects such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or where drafts are stored, leaving gaps in transparency.

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—two short clauses that front-load the main purpose ('Create a draft') and add a critical safety note. Every word contributes value, with no wasted text.

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's low complexity (5 parameters, no output schema), the description is too minimal. It does not explain return values, side effects beyond not sending, or any post-creation behavior. A more complete description would mention what happens after draft creation (e.g., draft ID returned, stored in drafts folder).

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 provides no additional meaning beyond the input schema. It does not explain any parameter, such as the required 'account', 'to', 'subject', or 'body', nor the optional 'cc'. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 ('Create a draft') and explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'gmail_send' by noting it does not send. This combination of specific verb and resource with sibling differentiation earns a top score.

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 provides clear context by labeling it as the 'Safer default than gmail_send,' implying its use when avoiding immediate sending. However, it lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tools beyond gmail_send, which prevents a perfect score.

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