gmail_send

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

With no annotations, the description adds the confirmation requirement but does not disclose other behavioral traits like permissions, rate limits, or side effects of sending. The confirmation directive is useful but insufficient for full transparency.

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 concise with two sentences, but the second sentence is a guideline rather than structural content. It is front-loaded but sacrifices completeness for brevity.

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 with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain required fields, account context, or body/cc/subject semantics.

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%, and the description provides no additional meaning for any of the 5 parameters. The agent must rely solely on parameter names in the schema, which lack detail.

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 from one account', but does not differentiate from sibling tools like gmail_draft or gmail_modify. It is adequate but not distinctive.

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 includes a confirmation directive but fails to specify when to use this tool versus alternatives such as gmail_draft or gmail_modify. No context on prerequisites or excluded use cases.

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