Send a draft

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

Annotations already flag destructiveness and mutability, but the description adds specific behavioral context: the draft is moved to Trash after sending, and sender/recipient checks re-run at send time. The term 'GATED' hints at restricted access, though it's vague. It doesn't explain the confirmation requirement, but that's partially covered by the schema.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and side effect, followed by a terse warning. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or 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?

The description covers the core action and a key side effect, but omits important operational details: the need for 'confirmed' to actually send, the 'dry_run' option for previewing without side effects, and the UIDVALIDITY safety check. Without an output schema, these gaps could lead to incorrect usage if the agent relies solely on the description.

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 covers 60% of parameters with descriptions, leaving 'uid' and 'confirmed' undocumented. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning; it merely states the action. It fails to clarify the critical 'confirmed' flag or the 'dry_run' preview option, which are essential for correct invocation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Send'), names the resource ('saved draft'), and states the outcome ('move it to Trash'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like 'send' or 'delete_draft' and leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 phrase 'as written' implies use when no changes are needed, and 'then move it to Trash' signals when this tool is appropriate. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, but the context is clear enough that an agent can infer when to use it versus other draft-related tools.

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