send_draft_email

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action ('send') but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't specify if this is a destructive operation (e.g., does sending delete the draft?), authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. The description is minimal and misses key operational context.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a mutation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral transparency, usage guidelines, and details on outcomes (e.g., what is returned or happens post-send). For a tool that performs a potentially irreversible action, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct use.

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%, with the single parameter 'draft_id' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as format examples or where to find the ID. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 'Send an existing draft email' clearly states the action (send) and resource (draft email), distinguishing it from siblings like 'send_email' (which likely sends a new email) and 'create_draft_email'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'update_draft_email' in terms of finality, though the verb 'send' implies transmission versus editing.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a draft created first), exclusions, or compare it to 'send_email' for sending non-draft emails. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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