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. It explicitly discloses the most important behavioral trait: the draft is not sent immediately and allows human review. This is valuable and non-obvious. It does not mention the draft being stored in the Gmail drafts folder or other side effects, but the core behavior is clearly disclosed.

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 concise, purposeful sentences. The primary behavior (create draft, no immediate sending) is front-loaded, and every word adds meaning. No filler or redundant phrasing.

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?

The tool is simple, all parameters are documented in the schema, and there is no output schema. The description covers the purpose and the key distinction from sending. It does not explain the Gmail drafts folder or follow-up steps, but those are not essential for correct invocation. A 4 is appropriate.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning or examples, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb (creates), a resource (an email draft in the user's Gmail account), and a key restriction (without sending it immediately). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool gmail_send_email, and the action is not vague or tautological.

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 implies the appropriate context: use this tool when an email should be prepared for human review before dispatch, versus sending immediately. It does not explicitly name gmail_send_email as the alternative or state exclusions, but the contrast between 'draft' and 'send' is evident from the phrasing.

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