gmail_send_draft

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

The description explicitly flags 'real, irreversible send,' which adds meaningful warning beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation. It clarifies the irreversibility consequence, though it could add returning message ID or delivery confirmation context, but with the destructiveHint annotation present the bar is already well met.

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?

Two short, tightly scoped sentences. Front-loaded with the core action, immediately followed by the key warning, then necessary workflow guidance. Zero filler or redundancy.

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 tool is simple (2 params, 1 required) and has an output schema, so the burden is reduced. The description covers the core action, the irreversible consequence, and the prerequisite workflow, giving the agent everything needed to safely invoke it. Minor gap: no explicit mention of error cases (e.g., sending an already-sent draft), but this is acceptable for a simple 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not document the draft_id parameter format or the account parameter at all. However, draft_id is self-explanatory and required; account is nullable with a default, and its semantics are intuitive given the Gmail domain. Baseline 3 applies as schema documents the parameters structurally.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Send a previously created draft.' Explicitly notes irreversibility. Strongly distinguishes from siblings by explaining there is no alternative that sends arbitrary text directly, differentiating from gmail_create_draft.

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?

Explicitly states the prerequisite workflow — a draft must be created via gmail_create_draft first, and that there is no tool for sending arbitrary text. This directly addresses when to use this tool and references the sibling alternative, making selection unambiguous.

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