send-draft-message

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint true and readOnlyHint false, so the description is not the sole source of side-effect info. It adds that the message is saved to Sent Items and notes no request body needed. However, it doesn't mention irreversibility or what happens to the draft after sending, which would be expected given the destructive hint.

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?

Two concise sentences plus a tip, all containing useful information. The primary action is front-loaded, and no filler is present.

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 straightforward send operation, the description covers core requirements but omits output format, error cases (e.g., missing draft), and any post-send behavior. With no output schema, more detail on expected response or failure modes would improve completeness.

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%, with all parameters described. The description reinforces that only messageId is needed and that the draft must exist, which is helpful but adds little beyond the existing parameter descriptions. Baseline is appropriate 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 'Send an existing draft message' and enumerates the draft types (new, reply, reply-all, forward). It distinguishes from sibling mail tools by focusing on drafts, but the 'Alternatively, send a new message in a single operation' clause introduces slight ambiguity about the tool's primary scope.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like send-mail or create-* draft/send flows. The tip about drafting presence ('Draft must exist in Drafts folder') is a constraint, not a selection criterion. It doesn't mention when to choose this over other send operations.

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