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

The description discloses several important behaviors beyond the annotations: it costs 1 credit, it leaves a draft in place if sending fails, it does not store recipients or send options, and it requires a specific Authorization header. These are exactly the kind of side effects and prerequisites an agent needs to know before calling a mutating tool.

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 dense but well-organized: it front-loads the core action, then covers cost, parameters, alternatives, failure behavior, and retry guidance. Every sentence adds value, though the retry paragraph is long and could be slightly tightened. It earns a 4 for being information-dense without being bloated.

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 tool with 8 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no idempotency guarantee, the description covers the critical operational context: cost, failure side effects, retry strategy, and authentication. The output schema exists, so return values don't need to be described. An agent has enough information to call this tool correctly and handle failures.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains the recipients array structure, role_mapping semantics, and the meaning of the send options. It doesn't explicitly describe every parameter (e.g., metadata, sequential, send_invite, send_completion_email), but it references them in the retry guidance, and the schema provides their names and defaults. The description adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 ('sends') and resource ('a saved template'), and explicitly distinguishes this from sibling tools like send_envelope and add_document_to_draft. It also clarifies the two-step behavior (stamp a Draft, then send it), which makes the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: it is the send-from-template path, and it warns not to also pass template_id to send_envelope. It also names the alternative for composing without sending (add_document_to_draft) and the retry path (send_draft), so an agent knows exactly when to choose this tool versus others.

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