google_gmail_draft_email

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. 'Create a draft email' implies a write operation but doesn't specify what 'draft' means in this context - whether it's saved to a drafts folder, what permissions are needed, or what happens on failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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 at just three words - 'Create a draft email'. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with zero wasted words. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information about the tool's purpose.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'draft' means operationally, what the tool returns, or how it differs from the send_email sibling. The 100% schema coverage helps with parameters, but the overall context for using this tool effectively is lacking.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with all 6 parameters well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the structured schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 'Create a draft email' clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('draft email'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'google_gmail_send_email' - both involve email creation, but one creates drafts while the other sends immediately.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that this creates a draft (not sent) email, nor does it reference the sibling 'google_gmail_send_email' tool for when immediate sending is required. There's no context about prerequisites or when this tool is appropriate.

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