gmail_send_email

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It confirms that an email is actually sent through the user's Gmail account, but it does not mention irreversibility, permission requirements, sending limits, or failure behavior.

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 one short sentence with no filler. 'Directly' adds differentiation value, and 'via the user's Gmail account' provides useful scoping without unnecessary detail.

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?

The tool is simple and all parameters are documented, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description is only minimally complete. It omits side-effect notes, alternative-tool context, and any indication of what is returned after sending.

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?

All seven parameters are already described in the input schema, so the description does not add parameter-level meaning. This is acceptable because schema coverage is 100%, and the fields are straightforward.

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 clear verb ('sends'), a resource ('email'), and a scope ('via the user's Gmail account'). The word 'directly' signals immediate delivery and helps distinguish this tool from the sibling gmail_create_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?

Implicitly, 'directly' suggests use when an immediate send is wanted rather than creating a draft. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and the draft alternative is not named.

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