proposals_send_documents_contracts_template

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false, openWorldHint true), the description adds no behavioral context. It does not disclose what sending entails, whether it triggers emails, updates records, requires permissions, or any side effects. Since annotations do not fully cover safety (readOnlyHint false implies mutation), the description should provide more detail but remains silent.

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, which could be seen as concise, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently worded. A concise description should pack meaningful guidance into few words; 'Send template' provides almost no actionable information. It is a fragment, not a well-structured sentence, and every word does not earn its place because it conveys nothing useful.

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 6 parameters, 3 required, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It lacks any explanation of what the tool does, how the parameters interplay, expected outcomes, or any context that would let an agent call it correctly. The openWorldHint annotation suggests broader behavior not described here, leaving the agent guessing.

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% with basic descriptions like 'User Id', 'Contact Id', etc. The description does not add any meaning beyond these trivial labels. While baseline is 3 for high coverage, the description's failure to explain the relationship between parameters (e.g., templateId, userId, contactId) or how they are used keeps it at baseline. It neither helps nor hurts parameter understanding.

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 template' is a near-tautology, merely restating the tool's name without clarifying what sending a template does, to whom, or in what context. It fails to distinguish this tool from its sibling 'proposals_send_documents_contracts' which also sends documents/contracts. No resource or actual outcome is described.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as proposals_send_documents_contracts or proposals_list_documents_contracts_templates. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or scenarios where this specific template-sending tool is appropriate.

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