Send a previously created draft email. Use this after draft_email or draft_reply when ready to send. The draft will be moved from Drafts to Sent folder automatically. This action cannot be undone.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| draftId | Yes | Draft ID from draft_email or draft_reply response |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| message | Yes | ||
| labelIds | No | ||
| threadId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseOutput schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "id": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "labelIds": {
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "message": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "threadId": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "id",
+ "threadId",
+ "message"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it discloses the irreversible nature ('This action cannot be undone') and the automatic folder movement ('moved from Drafts to Sent folder automatically'). Annotations already indicate it's not read-only and not destructive, but the description provides specific consequences that help the agent understand the tool's impact.
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 perfectly concise with three sentences that each serve a distinct purpose: stating the action, explaining the outcome, and warning about irreversibility. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no redundant information.
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 the tool has annotations covering safety aspects, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema (implied by context signals), the description provides excellent contextual completeness. It covers purpose, usage timing, behavioral consequences, and warnings - everything needed for the agent to use this tool appropriately without over-explaining what's already in structured fields.
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?
With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents the single required parameter 'draftId'. The description adds minimal parameter semantics by mentioning 'Draft ID from draft_email or draft_reply response', which slightly reinforces the schema but doesn't provide significant additional value. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 specific action ('send a previously created draft email'), identifies the resource ('draft email'), and distinguishes it from siblings by referencing 'draft_email' and 'draft_reply' as prerequisites. It goes beyond the tool name by explaining the outcome ('moved from Drafts to Sent folder').
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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('after draft_email or draft_reply when ready to send'), provides prerequisites ('previously created draft'), and implies alternatives (not using it if not ready to send). It clearly distinguishes this from draft creation tools in the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.