gmail_send_draft

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly warns 'This will actually send the email' and emphasizes the confirm safety gate, which is crucial for an irreversible action. It also mentions the required OAuth scope. It does not describe post-send behavior, but the key risks are covered.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes a critical safety warning. Every sentence provides value, and there is no fluff or repetition.

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 simple send action, the description covers the essential context: the irreversible nature, the confirmation requirement, and the required scope. It does not explain return values, but no output schema is present and the action's outcome is obvious. Sibling tools provide enough surrounding context to distinguish this operation.

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 coverage is 100% and each parameter has a clear description in the schema. The tool description repeats the confirm requirement but does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states 'Send a draft email' with a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like gmail_create_draft, gmail_update_draft, and gmail_delete_draft. The action is unambiguous and leaves no doubt about what the tool does.

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 makes clear that this tool is for sending an already-created draft, which is implied by the context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the contrast with other draft-related tools is evident. The safety warning about confirm being required is an operational guideline.

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