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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the external-send nature is partly covered. The description adds real value by stating the message is emailed with the user's address as reply-to and that the message should be short, but it omits whether the sender sees the user's address, whether sending is reversible, and any rate or length limits.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the actor, action, recipient, and reply-address behavior all land immediately.

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 simple two-parameter action with no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, this is close to complete. Minor gaps remain around failure modes (invalid or expired link) and what the call returns, but nothing essential to invoking it is missing.

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 50%: the 'link' parameter is well documented with example formats, while 'message' has no schema description. The description partially compensates by framing it as the user's own short message, but adds nothing about length limits or formatting.

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 uses a specific verb (emails) and clearly identifies both the resource (the user's short message) and the recipient (the person who shared a link), plus the reply-address behavior. It is distinguishable from siblings like send_artifact or ask_shared, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the tool applies when replying to whoever shared an ArtifactSend link. There is no explicit statement of when to choose this over ask_shared, list_comments, or link_for_person, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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