gmail_send

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

The description reveals key behaviors: sending an email versus saving a draft, and using thread_id to reply. However, with no annotations provided, it does not cover other behavioral aspects such as authentication, rate limits, or irreversible actions, which could be important for an agent.

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 sentence that is direct and front-loaded. It includes the essential information without any extraneous text, earning its place 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?

Given the tool has 8 parameters (4 required) and zero schema descriptions, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the account enum, the effect of setting draft=true, or the return value. An output schema exists but is not referenced, so the agent lacks guidance for complete usage.

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 add meaning. It only hints at two parameters: draft (via 'save a draft') and thread_id (via 'makes it a reply'). Other parameters like to, subject, cc, bcc, and account are not described, leaving the agent to infer from parameter names.

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 tool's purpose: sending an email or saving a draft, with thread_id enabling replies. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like gmail_search, gmail_read, and gmail_modify, which handle different 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?

The description implies usage for sending or drafting emails, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide any exclusions. The sibling context helps, but the description itself offers no direct guidance.

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