gmail_send_email

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, covering write and destructive behavior. The description adds the .env enablement condition but does not detail success/failure outcomes, rate limits, or other traits beyond annotations.

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 sentence, but it packs a usage condition and the core action. It is not overly verbose but lacks structured breakdown (e.g., separate usage note).

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 5 parameters, 3 required, and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the output or failure modes, nor does it specify that it sends to recipients. The output schema exists but the description should still provide behavioral context.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not describe any parameters; however, parameter names (to, subject, body, cc, bcc) are self-explanatory. Minimal added value over 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 verb 'send' and the resource 'email', distinguishing it from sibling tools like gmail_create_draft. However, it does not specify that it sends via Gmail API or the account context, leaving minor ambiguity.

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 mentions a prerequisite ('explicit enablement in .env') but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like gmail_create_draft. It lacks explicit context for decision-making.

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