gmail_send

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only states 'Send', implying mutation, but does not disclose rate limits, authentication, side effects (e.g., email sent from user's account), or error behavior. More detail is needed for a sending operation.

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 extremely concise (one sentence) and front-loaded. It includes useful parenthetical about plain text vs HTML. However, it may be too brief for a tool with 7 parameters.

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 no output schema and 7 parameters (3 required), the description lacks context about return values, error scenarios, or confirmation of sending. It does not compensate for the missing output schema.

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 each parameter described. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but the schema already provides sufficient documentation for parameters. Baseline 3 applies.

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 a new Gmail email (plain text or HTML)' clearly states the tool's action (send), resource (Gmail email), and distinguishing features (plain text or HTML). It effectively differentiates from sibling tools like gmail_reply or gmail_forward.

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 versus alternatives such as gmail_create_draft or gmail_reply. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or context for appropriate use.

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