send-draft

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

No annotations exist, so description bears full burden. It discloses that the tool 'SENDS real email immediately and cannot be unsent', requires explicit confirmation, and explains how drafts with attachments are handled differently. This is thorough and safety-conscious.

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 well-structured and concise: starts with purpose, then returns, then exclusions, then safety. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. Ideal length for an AI agent to quickly parse.

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 the tool's complexity (sending email with MIME considerations) and presence of an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: when to use, what it returns, safety warnings, and special cases (attachments). No significant gaps remain.

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?

Only one parameter (draft_id) is defined, and the input schema has 0% description coverage. The description does not explain the parameter's origin or format beyond its pattern; the return values mention draft_id but not how to obtain it. While the parameter is simple, adding context (e.g., 'obtain from list-drafts') would improve clarity.

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 tool sends an existing Apple Mail draft and specifies when to use it (after user review or explicit request). It distinguishes from siblings like create-draft, read-draft, and update-draft by emphasizing sending, not editing or creating.

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?

Explicit 'Use when' and 'Do not use when' sections provide clear context: send only after review or explicit request, and avoid if user still needs to edit or if attachments are present (use send-email instead). This contrasts effectively with sibling tools.

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