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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false), the description discloses concrete side effects: delivers exactly one row, records sent_at and resend_message_id, and refuses send if the lead is on the do_not_contact suppression list. It also explains the outbound-tier approval behavior and instructs the agent not to re-ask, adding valuable operational context.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then adds relevant side-effect and approval details. It is slightly verbose in the bracketed approval note, but that content is operational guidance that helps the agent act correctly rather than filler.

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 mutation-heavy nature of the tool, no output schema, and the approval nuance, the description is very complete. It covers what is sent, what state change occurs, suppression behavior, when to call it, and the manager-approval flow, leaving little ambiguity for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents draft_id, reply_to, and companyId. The description adds no significant parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb and resource: send an approved outreach draft via the company's Resend connection and mark it 'sent'. It also differentiates this from other send-related tools by emphasizing it is a manual, human-in-the-loop send of exactly one lead_drafts row.

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 description gives a clear trigger: 'Use after an operator approves a draft in the Leads tab' and a routing rule: 'Operator approved an outreach draft and wants to send it → use this'. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, but the context is specific enough for an agent to recognize when to call it.

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