send_draftSend an existing email draft by its ID after verifying its contents. This action delivers the draft to the recipient and cannot be undone.
Send a draft that already exists, by its id. This reaches a real person and CANNOT be undone. There is deliberately no way to write and send in one step: create the draft, check it is right, then send it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| draft_id | Yes | id from create_draft |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), the description explains the real consequence: it reaches a real person and cannot be undone. It also warns that there is deliberately no combined write-and-send path, which helps the agent plan the multi-step workflow.
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 direct sentences front-load the core action and consequence, then add a brief workflow note. Every sentence earns its place with no padding or repetition.
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 one-parameter, irreversible send operation, the description provides complete context: what is sent, by what identifier, what the consequence is, and the expected workflow. No return value is required because the behavior itself is clearly a fire-and-forget mutation.
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 input schema already fully describes the single parameter draft_id as 'id from create_draft', so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds only that the draft must already exist and be sent by id, which is useful but not a significant addition beyond 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 states a specific verb and resource: send an existing draft identified by its id. It also distinguishes itself from message-creation tools by emphasizing that this is the final send step for an already-created 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?
It clearly tells the agent when to use the tool: after creating and checking a draft, use this to send it. It does not explicitly name alternatives like create_draft or reply_draft, but the workflow description effectively routes the agent away from using this tool for writing or replying.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.