send_existing_draft

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only states the action without disclosing behavior like authentication requirements, error handling if draft doesn't exist, or side effects like marking the draft as sent.

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 and well-structured with a brief overview and explicit Args/Returns section. It is not verbose, though it could include more detail without sacrificing conciseness.

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 tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential purpose and parameter. However, it lacks context on prerequisites, errors, or relationship to sibling tools, which would help completeness.

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 description adds meaning for the single parameter 'draft_id' by stating 'The ID of the draft to send,' which goes beyond the schema's empty description. However, it could provide more detail on how to obtain the 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 'Send an existing email draft via Gmail,' which specifies the verb (send) and resource (existing draft). It distinguishes from sibling tools like draft_email (create) and send_new_email (compose and send).

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 implies when to use this tool (when you have a draft ID to send) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives such as send_new_email. The context is clear but lacks exclusions.

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