Send a draft

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

Annotations already declare openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the important out-of-band effect that e-mails go out to signers and that user confirmation is required, which is context the annotations don't convey. It could go further by saying the send cannot be undone/re-called.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and effect, with the confirmation requirement as the second. Nothing is wasted.

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 one-parameter mutation tool without an output schema, the description covers what happens and the safety gate reasonably well. It is still incomplete on the only parameter and on the consequence of sending (irreversibility, recipient set semantics).

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% for the single required parameter, so the description needed to explain it and doesn't. Nothing says whether "id" is the draft's UUID or which draft it refers to, and no format or source for obtaining it is given.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Sends a DRAFT document") and adds the concrete effect (PenlyDoc e-mails the first people to sign). The DRAFT qualifier implicitly distinguishes it from send_document, though the sibling is never named.

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?

"Confirm with the user first" gives a clear precondition for invoking the tool. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with send_document or describing when to use a draft versus a live document, so no exclusions/alternatives are stated.

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