Send one follow-up the user approved

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: re-checks thread, blocks if customer replied, and details optional overrides with defaults. Missing details on return value, error conditions, or authentication requirements, but the core behavioral traits are well-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 concise (3 sentences) and front-loaded with purpose. The important usage note is highlighted. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and key options, though some parameter explanations are omitted which could be included without bloating.

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?

Given the complexity (12 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides essential context but lacks parameter-level detail for many fields. It also does not describe the return value or error handling, which are important for a send operation. It partially compensates with the explicit constraint and default values.

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 explain parameters. It covers only about 5 of 12 parameters (body, format, quoteOriginal, appendSignature, and implicitly reminderId). Many important parameters (to, subject, cc, bcc, html, accountAlias, chatScope) are not described, leaving the agent with incomplete guidance.

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 action ('send') and resource ('one approved follow-up reminder'), with specific behavioral details like re-checking the thread and blocking if customer replied. It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'followup_cleanup' and 'followup_trigger'.

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 an explicit usage constraint: 'NEVER call without explicit user approval after showing the draft.' It also outlines the pre-condition of re-checking the thread. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., 'followup_due' or 'multi_gmail_followup_send'), though the purpose itself implies a specific scenario.

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