gmail_send

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. It states the body is plain text and the account is optional, but it does not mention auth requirements, delivery/error behavior, or response format, and it only implies the mutating nature of 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?

The description is a short action sentence followed by a compact args list. Every line adds information and there is no filler.

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 straightforward send operation, the essential invocation data is present. However, with no output schema or annotations, the description omits success/error expectations and any prerequisite/alternative routing, leaving an agent to guess at operational context.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 0%, the description gives every parameter a meaningful one-liner: recipient address, subject line, plain text body, and account behavior with default. This is exactly the compensation needed.

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 opens with 'Send an email,' which names a specific action and resource and clearly separates this mutation tool from the read/list gmail siblings. It does not explicitly name alternatives, so it misses the top mark for sibling differentiation.

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?

No guidance is given for when to choose gmail_send over gmail_get_message, gmail_list_unread, or calendar tools; the only contextual note is to omit account for the default account. The agent must infer the appropriate use case from the name and sibling names.

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