gmail_send_draft

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds two facts annotations can't convey: the draft must have been human-reviewed, and the action is audited — meaningful for an agent deciding whether to log or warn. It doesn't cover failure modes or irreversibility of the send.

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?

Three short sentences, zero padding, and the core action plus the routing rule are front-loaded in the first two sentences.

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 single-parameter send tool with full annotation and schema coverage, this is nearly complete — safety, scope, and routing are all addressed. Only error behavior and post-send side effects are left implicit.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100% ('Gmail draft ID to send'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds only the qualifier 'existing', which is implied by the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb + resource: 'Sends an existing Gmail draft'. It also scopes the object ('reviewed by a human') and contrasts with direct send, so an agent can distinguish it from gmail_send_message_strict and gmail_create_draft without opening schemas.

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?

'Prefer this over direct send when a draft already exists' gives an explicit selection rule against the closest alternative. It stops short of stating when-not to use it (e.g. draft not yet reviewed, draft missing) or what happens on an invalid draft_id.

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