gmail_send_draft

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

Adds important behavioral context beyond annotations: sending 'reaches other people and cannot be undone,' and requires human confirmation. This meaningfully extends the destructiveHint and readOnlyHint signals rather than merely repeating them.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core action and consequence, and every sentence earns its place. The Args section is minimal and does not bloat the definition.

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 consequential one-parameter action, the description covers the outcome, irreversibility, consent requirement, and parameter meaning. The existing output schema handles return-value expectations, so no critical information is missing.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, but it only says 'Draft to send,' which restates the schema property title 'Draft Id.' It does not explain how to obtain a draft_id or what format is expected.

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 an existing draft.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like gmail_create_draft, gmail_update_draft, and gmail_send_message, and the 'existing' qualifier scopes it to pre-built drafts.

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 explicit preconditions: show the draft and get explicit yes before calling, and explicitly says sending is not a plan step but a user decision. It does not name an alternative tool, but the context is clear enough for an agent to know when it is appropriate.

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