send_draft

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only and not destructive, but the description adds no extra behavioral context such as side effects (e.g., draft being sent/moved), permissions required, or rate limits. With annotations present, the bar is lower, yet the description provides zero additional transparency.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the core purpose efficiently.

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 mutating tool with no output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits return value information, side effects, and any distinguishing context from send_mail or reply, leaving the agent under-informed for a consequential action.

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 compensate. It implies draft_id refers to an existing draft but does not explicitly explain the parameter, its importance, or how to obtain the ID. The word 'existing' provides minimal semantic link.

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 'Send an existing draft' clearly identifies the action (send), the resource (draft), and the scope ('existing'), distinguishing it from siblings like create_draft, send_mail, or reply.

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 is provided on when to use this tool instead of send_mail or reply, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The description only states what it does, not when to use it.

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