proposals_send_documents_contracts

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

The description adds no behavioral detail beyond what annotations already provide. It doesn't disclose side effects, required permissions, format of the sent document, or any post-send actions. Since annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, the description at least aligns with a write operation, but it contributes nothing additional.

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 extremely short, but that is a symptom of under-specification rather than conciseness. It fails to earn its place because it adds no clarifying information. It is a single phrase with no structure or front-loading of key details.

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 tool's complexity (7 parameters, nested objects, no output schema) and the lack of description, the definition is completely inadequate. An agent cannot understand what the tool returns, what happens on success, or how to handle errors. The description is far too sparse for such a non-trivial operation.

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 86%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description does not add any parameter value, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the weight. No additional clarification on medium, sentBy, or nested objects is provided.

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 'Send document' states a verb and resource but is extremely vague. It doesn't specify what kind of document (proposal, contract, etc.), the destination, or the action's scope. It is essentially a restatement of the tool name and offers no differentiation from sibling tools like proposals_send_documents_contracts_template or proposals_list_documents_contracts.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent has no way to know if this is the right tool for sending a template or a specific document, or when to prefer the other send tool.

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