Create Draft Reply

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. It only states that a draft is created and can be edited before sending. It does not mention side effects like whether the ticket is modified, whether any permissions are needed, whether the draft is stored permanently, or whether the operation is idempotent. For a write operation, this is insufficient 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that communicates the purpose and the key behavior without any fluff. It earns its place by stating the core function and the 'editable before sending' nuance, and it does so efficiently.

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 tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal but not entirely inadequate. It conveys the main intent and the 'not sent yet' aspect, but it lacks details on how the draft relates to the ticket, whether the ticket status changes, or any prerequisites or constraints. Given the lack of annotations, this is a noticeable gap but not a critical failure.

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 every parameter (cc, to, bcc, ticket, userId, replyText) having a meaningful description. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 clearly states the tool creates a draft reply in FreeScout, with a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('draft reply'), and adds the key nuance that it can be edited before sending. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like freescout_add_note (which adds a note, not a reply) and freescout_update_ticket (which modifies ticket fields).

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to create a draft vs sending a reply directly, or when to use freescout_add_note instead. The description only states what it does, not the eligible scenarios or exclusions.

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