send_draft

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether draft is deleted after sending), required permissions, or success/failure behavior. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 very brief, but includes both a purpose sentence and a parameter list. It is front-loaded with the action. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., separate sections), but overall efficient.

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?

With only one parameter and an output schema (not detailed), the description covers the basic function. However, it omits details on return values, error scenarios, and any dependencies, which are needed for complete context.

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 only parameter, message_id, lacks description in the input schema (0% coverage). The description adds a Vietnamese explanation meaning 'ID of the draft email to send', which clarifies the parameter's role beyond the schema's generic 'Message Id'.

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 sends an existing draft email, using a specific verb (send) and resource (draft). It distinguishes from sibling tools like send_email (sends composed email) and 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like send_email, nor prerequisites (e.g., draft must exist). The description offers no context for appropriate usage.

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