send_prepared

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-redundant behavior: single-shot send with no automatic retry, the local-settings enablement gate, and the caveat that acceptance does not prove delivery. This is real added context beyond the structured fields.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying a distinct operational constraint, with the authorization precondition front-loaded. Nothing is padded or repeated.

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 destructive, non-idempotent send with annotation coverage but no output schema, the description covers the key risks: authorization, no-retry, enablement, and the delivery caveat. The remaining gap is parameter explanation, which is not covered anywhere else.

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?

Both parameters have 0% schema description coverage and the description never mentions account_id or confirmation_token by name. 'Only after user authorization' faintly hints at the purpose of confirmation_token, but neither parameter's format, provenance, or constraints are explained, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Send the exact preview once'), and the phrase 'the exact preview' clearly positions it as the execution step for the prepare_send sibling. It stops short of naming prepare_send explicitly, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

Gives a clear precondition ('only after user authorization') and an explicit prohibition ('Never automatically retry failures'), plus an environmental requirement ('sending must be enabled in local account settings'). It does not name the alternative tool or the exact step that must precede it, but the when-to-use context is strong.

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