send-draft-message

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

The annotations already indicate this is a mutating (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false) operation. The description adds that it saves to Sent Items, which is consistent but does not reveal additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions.

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 concise: two sentences plus a separate tip line. It is front-loaded with the main action and uses a bullet-style tip for emphasis. No unnecessary words.

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?

The description covers the core purpose, prerequisites (draft in Drafts folder), and an alternative workflow. However, it does not describe the response format or error cases. Given the lack of an output schema, adding expected return information would improve completeness.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters. The description reiterates that only messageId is required and that no request body is needed. This adds slight clarity but does not significantly extend understanding beyond the schema.

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 clearly identifies the tool's function: sending an existing draft message. It specifies the types of drafts (new, reply, reply-all, forward) and the outcome (saved in Sent Items). It also distinguishes from the sibling tool by noting an alternative to send a new message in a single operation, which likely refers to the 'send-mail' tool.

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 explicit guidance: no request body needed, just the message ID, and the draft must exist in the Drafts folder. It also mentions an alternative (send new message in one operation), implying when to use this tool vs. another. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it.

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