gmail_send_draft

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does it well: it explains that sends are never blindly repeated, names the lookup path (Outbox/Sent/Scheduled), specifies the failure mode ('send_state_unknown' with nothing re-sent), and documents result fields verified_in='outbox'|'sent'|'scheduled'.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first line, followed by the safety/idempotency semantics. The middle paragraph is dense but each clause carries real behavioral information; the confirm note at the end mildly duplicates the schema's own description.

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 5-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema mutation tool, this covers the hard parts: irreversibility/confirmation, ambiguity handling, error code, and verification fields. Auth requirements are the only meaningful omission.

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 100%, so the schema already documents index, query, confirm, schedule and expect_subject in detail. The description restates the index/query pairing and the confirm requirement but adds little syntax or meaning beyond what the schema fields already say.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Send an existing draft') and anchors it to the gmail.drafts listing, so an agent knows where the target comes from. It never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling gmail_send (new message vs. existing draft), leaving that distinction to be inferred.

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?

Gives concrete operational guidance: confirm=true is mandatory, schedule defers instead of sending now, and it explicitly warns to check gmail.list folder='sent' before any retry. Missing only an explicit statement of when to choose this over gmail_send.

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