gmail_send_email

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It clearly warns that the action is immediate, irreversible, and cannot be recalled, plus it emphasizes user confirmation. It could go further (e.g., failure handling, rate limits), but for a send action the key permanence trait is clearly disclosed.

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?

Four concise sentences, each with a distinct purpose (action, precondition, warning, alternative). No 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?

For a side-effecting mutation with no annotations, the description covers the critical context: user confirmation, permanence, and relationship to gmail_create_draft. It doesn't describe return values or error behavior, but those are less critical for a send action and the schema covers parameters.

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%, all parameters have descriptions. The description does not add additional parameter semantics but relies on the schema, which is acceptable.

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 ('Sends') with a clear resource ('email via the authenticated Gmail account'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool gmail_create_draft by explicitly directing agents to that alternative for drafts.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: use only after the user has explicitly confirmed sending, and use gmail_create_draft for draft review instead. This clearly states when and when not to use the tool.

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