gmail_send_draft

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

No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., whether sending is irreversible, permissions needed, or side effects). With annotations absent, the description carries full burden but fails to provide essential 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?

Extremely concise at 4 words, covering the core purpose without verbosity. However, it lacks structure or additional context that could be added in a few more sentences.

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 simple action like sending a draft, the description is minimally functional if the agent can infer prerequisites from the parameter. However, with no output schema and no annotations, completeness is borderline adequate.

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 schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter, so the schema already provides meaning. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what is in the schema.

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 the action 'Send' and the resource 'existing Gmail draft'. It distinguishes from related sibling tools like 'gmail_send' by specifying 'existing draft'. However, it does not differentiate from other draft-related actions.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'gmail_send' or 'gmail_create_draft'. Does not mention prerequisites such as having a draft ID.

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