draft_send

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'post-send proof' as an outcome, but it does not describe side effects, authorization requirements, idempotency behavior, or what happens to the draft after sending.

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 concise sentence with no filler, and it front-loads the core action. It is appropriately short, though the brevity comes at the cost of missing important contextual and parameter guidance.

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 presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return structure, but the tool still lacks behavioral transparency, param semantics, and usage alternatives. For a send operation with an idempotency key, an agent has too little information to call it confidently.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain `account`, `draft_id`, or especially `idempotency_key`. The word 'draft' adds minor meaning to `draft_id`, but the critical semantics of idempotency and account selection are left to inference.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Send a draft', which is actionable and clear. The phrase 'with post-send proof' adds a distinguishing outcome from sibling tools like `send`, though it does not explicitly name or contrast that sibling.

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 clearly implies the tool is used when a draft already exists and needs to be sent, which is a distinct context from `draft_create` or `send`. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives.

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