send_draft

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

Annotations already indicate destructive behavior, but the description adds valuable context by explaining the exact sequence: fetch, send via SMTP, then delete. This provides transparency beyond the annotation without contradicting it, though it does not cover failure cases or partial outcomes.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by the process and a usage hint. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant details or fluff.

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 simple action, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains the workflow and provides a hint for finding IDs. Minor gaps include error handling or return behavior, but these are not critical for a straightforward send-and-delete operation.

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%, with each parameter already documented. The description adds a useful hint about using list_emails to get draft IDs, but otherwise does not deepen parameter understanding beyond the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage with marginal extra value.

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 sends an existing draft email and removes it from Drafts, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like send_email by focusing on existing drafts, and the process (fetched, sent, deleted) leaves no ambiguity.

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 tells users to use list_emails with the Drafts mailbox to find draft IDs, which is actionable usage guidance. It implicitly excludes using send_email for new emails, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives. However, the context is clear enough for an agent to know when to choose this tool.

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