gws.mail.send_draft

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, covering the mutation and external side-effect profile. The description adds the 'after create_draft' sequencing but does not describe what happens to the draft after sending or other behavioral details.

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 sentence that front-loads the purpose and gives a usage hint. Every word earns its place with no 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?

For a simple send action with two parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate. It covers the key prerequisite (create_draft) and the annotation provides the safety context. It could mention irreversibility or external sending, but openWorldHint already signals that.

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 coverage is 100%, with both account and draftId described in the schema. The description reinforces that draftId comes from create_draft but does not add new meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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 an existing email draft' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling create_draft by noting 'Use after create_draft', making the tool's role unambiguous.

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 phrase 'Use after create_draft' provides explicit sequencing, telling the agent when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, though no direct alternative exists in the sibling list.

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