gmail_send_draft

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action. It fails to disclose side effects (e.g., whether the draft is marked as sent, irreversible), permission requirements, or any other behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

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 with no wasted words. However, given the tool's simplicity, a second sentence providing contextual guidance would have been valuable without harming conciseness.

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 tool that sends an email (a meaningful side effect), the description is incomplete: it does not mention prerequisites like having a draft ID, potential irreversibility, or how to find drafts. The presence of an output schema doesn't compensate for missing usage context.

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% and the description only minimally clarifies that draft_id refers to an existing draft, without explaining the ID format, how to obtain it, or its relationship to other tools like gmail_draft or gmail_search.

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?

Description clearly states a specific action ('Send') and resource ('existing Gmail draft'), distinguishing it from siblings like gmail_send (new email) and gmail_draft (draft management).

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 'existing Gmail draft' implies the tool is used when a draft already exists, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like gmail_send or gmail_draft, nor any when-not-to-use conditions.

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