gmail_send_draft

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. The description only states the action without mentioning side effects (e.g., whether the draft is deleted after sending), authorization requirements, or potential constraints. This leaves significant gaps for safe and correct usage.

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?

Two concise sentences that front-load the action and provide immediate guidance. No superfluous details, efficient and to the point.

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 two-parameter tool, the description covers the core action and provides necessary context for obtaining the draft ID. However, it lacks behavioral details (e.g., what happens to the draft after sending) that could be helpful given no output schema or annotations. It is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 clear descriptions for both parameters. The description adds little additional meaning beyond reinforcing the source of draftId ('from gmail_list_drafts or gmail_draft'). Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema already documents parameters adequately.

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 an existing draft email') and the resource ('draft email'). It distinguishes from siblings by referencing gmail_list_drafts for obtaining draft IDs, which helps differentiate from tools like gmail_send and gmail_draft.

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?

Provides explicit guidance to use gmail_list_drafts to get draft IDs, indicating a prerequisite step. While it implies when to use (sending a draft), it does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives like gmail_send for new emails.

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