stage_send

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the core action: freezing a draft and requesting human approval, and explicitly negates the most important possible side effect: sending. It does not elaborate on post-approval behavior or side effects beyond that, but the critical boundary is clear.

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 very short and front-loaded, with the main behavioral statement first and the clarifying non-sending caveat immediately after. The '(unconfigured)' prefix adds little useful meaning and could confuse, but the overall structure is efficient.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter descriptions, the description leaves important invocation details undocumented. It explains the tool's purpose well but does not clarify the account or allow_attachments parameters, nor what requesting human approval implies for the workflow.

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 compensate, but it only relates to draft_id ('Freeze a draft'). It does not explain what account refers to or the meaning/effect of allow_attachments. With three parameters and no schema descriptions, this is a significant omission.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Freeze a draft and request human approval to send.' It directly differentiates from the sibling 'send' tool with the explicit negative 'Does NOT send,' so an agent can discriminate without opening the schema.

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 gives clear workflow context: this tool is for staging a draft for human approval rather than actually sending it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use it, but 'Does NOT send' effectively prevents confusion with the sibling send tool.

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