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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, openWorld=true, destructive=false): states the message only sends if the contact has an email/phone on file, that manual texts count toward SMS usage (a cost implication), that it reaches other people and needs per-call confirmation, and that a Cotlet API key with app access is required. This is rich, decision-relevant behavioral 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?

Front-loaded with the core action, but it is padded with a slightly awkward comparison sentence ('as the Send Text/Email action does') and repeats the confirmation idea twice ('By default you confirm each call' and 'confirm with the user before each call'). The behavior is covered but not tightly worded.

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?

Complete for a send tool: it covers recipient requirements, cost/SMS-usage implications, confirmation behavior, and auth needs, and no output schema means return values needn't be described. Only minor gaps remain, such as what the tool returns on success or failure.

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 all five parameters including the channels enum and the template/contact_id/appointment_id roles. The description adds only marginal meaning, noting that body can replace the template text. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Specific verb (send) plus resource (customer email/text/both) and mechanism (communication templates). An agent immediately knows this dispatches outbound messages from a template, distinct from the note/appointment siblings like zenmaid_add_note.

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 clear context for when to use it (sending a customer an email/text from a template, mirroring the in-app Send Text/Email action) and the confirmation requirement. It doesn't name an alternative tool, but there is no competing send tool among the zenmaid siblings, so the scope is unambiguous.

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