gmail_sendDraft

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. While 'Send' clearly indicates a side-effect action, the description does not disclose consequences such as the draft being permanently moved to Sent, the email being delivered to recipients, or the need for specific permissions. This lack of behavioral context is a notable gap for an irreversible action.

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 a single, focused sentence that earns its place. It is front-loaded, contains no fluff, and is appropriately concise for a tool with one parameter.

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 simple, one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the core purpose. It does not explain return values or error behavior, but these are not necessary for such a straightforward action. The absence of side-effect disclosure is the primary omission, but the tool's simplicity keeps it reasonably complete.

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 provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'draftId' with a clear description ('Draft ID to send.'). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already documents, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 is highly specific: it clearly states the action ('Send') and the resource ('previously created draft email'). It naturally distinguishes from sibling tools like gmail_send (which sends a new email) and gmail_createDraft (which creates a draft).

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 implies usage: you need a draft ID from a previously created draft. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of gmail_send or gmail_createDraft. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusions, so the guidance is only implicit.

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