google_gmail_send_email

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Send a new email' implies a write/mutation operation but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: it doesn't mention authentication needs, rate limits, whether emails are sent immediately or queued, error handling for invalid addresses, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in 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 extremely concise at just three words ('Send a new email'), making it front-loaded and efficient with zero wasted words. Every element serves a purpose: verb, adjective, and resource. This is an excellent example of minimalism where brevity doesn't sacrifice basic clarity of purpose.

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 this is a mutation tool (sending emails) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address authentication requirements, error conditions, rate limits, or what the tool returns upon success/failure. While the schema covers parameters well, the description fails to provide the contextual information needed for safe and effective use of this write operation.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with all 6 parameters well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema (e.g., it doesn't clarify format requirements for email addresses, size limits for body content, or how HTML vs plain text is handled). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't add meaningful semantic value beyond the structured 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 'Send a new email' clearly states the verb ('Send') and resource ('email'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'google_gmail_draft_email' (which creates drafts) and 'google_gmail_delete_email' (which deletes emails). However, it lacks specificity about the email service (Gmail), which is implied by the tool name but not explicitly stated in the description.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'google_gmail_draft_email' for creating drafts instead of sending immediately, or clarify prerequisites such as authentication requirements. There's no explicit when/when-not usage context or comparison to other email-related tools.

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