gmail_send

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions supported features but does not disclose side effects (e.g., sending an email is irreversible), authentication requirements, rate limits, or the fact that it creates a sent message. The description is too sparse for a mutation tool.

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, well-structured sentence that introduces the core action and key capabilities. Every word is useful; there is no fluff or redundancy.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the tool has 8 parameters with zero schema descriptions, and the description fails to explain how to use them effectively (e.g., the relationship between threading parameters). It also lacks information about return behavior, error handling, or prerequisites. The description is too minimal for a tool with this complexity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by mapping features to parameters: 'plain text and HTML' implies the 'html' boolean, 'CC/BCC' maps to 'cc' and 'bcc', and 'threading for replies' hints at 'thread_id' and 'in_reply_to'. However, it does not clarify formats (e.g., comma-separated recipients) or the distinction between thread_id and in_reply_to, leaving gaps.

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 states 'Send an email' with a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like gmail_send_draft (which sends a draft) and gmail_draft (which creates a draft). The additional features (HTML, CC/BCC, threading) further clarify the 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as gmail_send_draft for sending existing drafts, or gmail_draft for creating drafts. There are no explicit usage contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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