Sends a prepared email draft only after explicit user approval, using the configured webmail account and a local review click; never retries sent or uncertain drafts.
Send ONLY after the user explicitly requests it. Requires send_enabled in local config and a local review-window click. Never retries a sent or uncertain draft. Optional Sent copy failure must never cause a resend.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| draft_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the risk profile is known. The description adds real value beyond that: a config flag prerequisite, a human-in-the-loop confirmation click, a no-retry policy, and the specific instruction that a Sent-copy failure must not trigger a resend. It doesn't say what happens to the draft after a send or what errors look like.
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, zero filler, and the most safety-critical instruction ('Send ONLY after the user explicitly requests it') is front-loaded. Each remaining sentence adds a distinct operational constraint.
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, open-world send tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description covers the gating, the human confirmation step, and the failure/retry policy. Remaining gaps are post-send behavior (is the draft consumed?) and error surfacing, which matter but are secondary.
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% and the single parameter draft_id is undocumented in both schema and description. The mention of 'sent or uncertain draft' hints that draft_id refers to a previously prepared draft, but format, provenance, and where to obtain it (prepare_email / local_draft_status) are unstated.
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 verb is present ('Send') and 'draft' is implied by 'Never retries a sent or uncertain draft', so an agent can infer this transmits a prepared draft by draft_id. However, the description never states plainly 'sends the prepared draft identified by draft_id to its recipients', leaving the action's object implicit. It doesn't contrast with the nearby prepare_email sibling explicitly.
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?
Strong gating guidance: 'Send ONLY after the user explicitly requests it' plus two concrete preconditions, 'Requires send_enabled in local config' and 'a local review-window click'. No explicit mention of the prepare_email/local_draft_status alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.