gmail_create_draft

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Create an email draft only' implies a write operation but doesn't specify permissions needed, whether drafts are saved automatically, rate limits, or what happens on failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in 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 with a single sentence, 'Create an email draft only.', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. Every part of the sentence contributes to the core purpose, making it efficient in structure.

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 that an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain return values, which helps completeness. However, with 4 parameters at 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description is too minimal for a mutation tool—it should provide more context on usage and parameters to be fully adequate.

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 schema provides no parameter details. The description adds no information about parameters like 'to', 'subject', 'body', or 'thread_id', failing to compensate for the coverage gap. This leaves all 4 parameters undocumented in meaning or usage.

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 an email draft only' clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('email draft'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'compose_email_reply' or 'gmail_get_message', which could also involve draft creation or email operations, so it's not fully specific to sibling context.

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 prerequisites (e.g., authentication status), exclusions, or compare to siblings like 'compose_email_reply' for replying versus creating new drafts. This leaves the agent with minimal context for tool selection.

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