gmail_send_draft

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing side effects. It only states the action (send) but does not mention consequences such as the draft being removed after sending, whether permissions are required, or if the operation is irreversible. This is a significant transparency gap for a state-changing tool.

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, concise, front-loaded sentence with no fluff or redundancy. However, it is arguably under-specified for a tool with behavioral implications, so it loses one point for not including essential context despite being efficiently written.

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 simple one-parameter schema and presence of an output schema, the description need not explain return values, but it is incomplete for practical use. It omits usage context, side effects, and parameter semantics, leaving the agent without enough information to confidently invoke or reason about the tool.

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 description provides no explanation of the draft_id parameter, leaving the schema's minimal 'Draft Id' title as the only guidance. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description should compensate, but it does not. The parameter name is self-explanatory, which prevents a score of 1, but no added value is contributed.

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 Gmail draft' clearly states the action (send) and the resource (existing Gmail draft), making it distinct from siblings like gmail_send (sending a new message) and gmail_draft (draft management). The use of 'existing' narrows scope and clarifies it operates on drafts only.

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, nor are any prerequisites mentioned (e.g., needing a draft_id or ensuring the draft exists). The description is purely definitional and offers no contextual decision support.

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