send_draftSends an existing email draft from a chosen mailbox only after the user explicitly requests it, ensuring drafts are not sent without confirmation.
Send an existing draft. Only when the user explicitly asked to send it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No | Which mailbox: email address, alias, or local part. Optional when only one account is connected. | |
| draft_id | Yes | draftId from create_draft or list_drafts. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, open-world, non-destructive operation, so the safety baseline is covered. The description adds a meaningful consent guardrail beyond that. It omits what happens to the draft after sending (is it consumed/moved?) and what the call returns, which matters for a mutation.
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?
Two short sentences, zero waste. The action statement comes first and the consent constraint immediately after, which is the right order for a mutation with a guardrail.
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 two-parameter send action, the description covers the core action and the consent rule but leaves the post-send state and return value unaddressed, and there is no output schema to cover that gap. It is adequate but not complete for a destructive-adjacent side-effecting call.
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%, with draft_id's provenance (create_draft or list_drafts) and the optional account fallback fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning of its own, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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?
"Send an existing draft" gives a specific verb and resource that is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling send_email, which an agent could easily confuse with this tool.
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 second sentence is an explicit gating condition: only send when the user explicitly asked. That is real when-to-use guidance. It stops short of naming the alternative (send_email for a new message) or stating what to do when consent is ambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.