imap_confirm_send

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses a meaningful behavioral guarantee ('exactly once') and a precondition ('previously frozen'), which is more than a bare send description. It does not describe failure behavior or maintenance state, but the core side effect and idempotency are clear.

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?

One sentence with no filler. The key action, object, and guarantee are all front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 two-parameter tool with full schema documentation and no output schema, the description is mostly sufficient. Missing usage alternatives and explicit failure behavior are minor gaps given the tool's low 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 100%, so the parameters are already fully documented. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; 'previously frozen' loosely clarifies draftId, but the schema already attributes draftId to a safe-send preview tool.

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 names a specific verb ('Send'), a specific resource ('previously frozen safe-send draft'), and a key constraint ('exactly once'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling draft/preview tools without opening the schema.

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 'previously frozen safe-send draft' implies the tool should be used after a safe-send preview step, but it does not explicitly name when to use this tool versus alternatives or state when not to use it. The guidance is present only by implication.

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