gmail_draft

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that this creates a draft and does not send it, and that the body supports Unicode. It does not describe authentication needs, side effects, where the draft is stored, or what the response contains.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase contributes either the action, the non-sending constraint, or a key content type.

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 schema is rich and covers all parameters, which carries most of the context. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description could say more about the draft's persistence, return value, or prerequisites; it is adequate but incomplete for a mutation tool.

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 nine parameters thoroughly. The description adds a small amount of meaning by noting 'Unicode body', but it omits several parameters such as cc, bcc, drive_files, signature, and from_address, so baseline 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 and resource: 'Create a new draft'. It also clarifies the key scope distinction '(not sent)', which helps distinguish this from sending tools, though it does not explicitly name siblings such as gmail_send or gmail_edit_draft.

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 parenthetical '(not sent)' implies when this tool should be used rather than gmail_send or gmail_send_draft. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or named alternatives, leaving routing mostly inferential.

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