gmail_edit_draft

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does real work: it discloses that the draft keeps its thread and reply drafts stay replies, that omitted fields are unchanged, and how append interacts with recipients and body. It does not mention permissions or what happens on a failed expect_subject check (the schema covers the latter).

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and resource, then a short paragraph on preservation semantics and one on the append switch. No filler sentences.

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 an 11-parameter, unannotated mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the most agent-relevant semantics (thread preservation, partial update, append behavior). It leaves the index/query draft-selection mechanics entirely to the schema, which is acceptable but leaves the targeting story thin.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3; the description adds genuine nuance by clarifying that default mode replaces recipients and replaces the whole editable body, whereas append mode adds recipients and appends body text at the end.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Change an existing draft (recipients, subject, body, attachments) and save it again.' An agent can distinguish this from gmail_draft (creation) or gmail_send_draft, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 explains replace-vs-append behavior and that omitted fields are left unchanged, which strongly implies edit-in-place usage, but it never states when to reach for this tool versus gmail_draft or gmail_send_draft.

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