send_draft

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

The description discloses the destructive nature (removing and deleting the draft) beyond the annotation destructiveHint: true. It explains the process: 'fetched, sent via SMTP, then deleted.' This adds valuable context about the tool's side effects, fully informing the agent.

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 with no superfluous words. The first sentence captures purpose and behavior, the second provides a usage hint. Every sentence earns its place, making it efficient and front-loaded.

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 destructive action with no output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains the process and usage. However, it lacks information about return values, error handling, or what happens on failure, which could be useful but is not critical given the tool's simplicity.

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 description does not need to add param details. The description mentions auto-detection for 'mailbox', but this is already in the schema. No additional semantic value beyond the schema is provided. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool's action: sending an existing draft email and removing it from Drafts. It specifies the verb 'send' and the resource 'draft email', and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'send_email' by focusing on drafts. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 a concrete usage guideline: 'Use list_emails with the Drafts mailbox to find draft IDs.' This gives the agent a clear prerequisite step. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., for composing new emails) or compare with 'send_email', leaving room for potential confusion.

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